M/S OMAXE BUILDHOME LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE I AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/15835/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01086601202528 May 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in terms of the consensus reached between the parties and in light of the judgment in Jyoti Sareen's case (supra) dated 10.09.2026, allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 30.03.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The reasoning was based on the agreement of counsel for both the petitioner and the respondents (Income Tax Department) to grant the petitioner the same relief as was granted in the aforementioned precedent case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties consent and a clear precedent exists for similar relief concerning Section 148 proceedings, the court will follow that precedent to provide a consistent and efficient resolution.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Omaxe Buildhome Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The petition challenged an action taken by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I. The specific action under challenge is not detailed, but it appears to be related to proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on a notice dated 30.03.2023. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner sought the same relief as granted in a previous case, CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others, decided on 10.09.2026. The parties agreed to this course of action.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others, in terms of the High Court's judgment dated 10.09.2026, concerning proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that based on the consent of the parties and the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case, they should be granted similar relief, including the quashing of the impugned notice and consequential proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its Senior Standing Counsel and Junior Standing Counsel, agreed to the petitioner's request for the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case, indicating no opposition to the assessee's prayer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

142 142 142 142

IN T IN T IN T IN T M/S OMAXE M/S OMAXE M/S OMAXE M/S OMAXE DEPUTY COM DEPUTY COM DEPUTY COM DEPUTY COM AND AND AND AND OTHER OTHER OTHER OTHER

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : M M (T M M for **

DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB 1.

Le also be entitled this Court date Union of India 2.

In terms of Jyoti notice dated 3 Income Tax Ac

11.09 11.09 11.09 11.09.2026 .2026 .2026 .2026 Vandana yadav

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH

CW CW CW CW Da Da Da Da

BUILDHOME LIMITED BUILDHOME LIMITED BUILDHOME LIMITED BUILDHOME LIMITED VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS MMISSIONER OF INCOME T MMISSIONER OF INCOME T MMISSIONER OF INCOME T MMISSIONER OF INCOME T RS RS RS RS

ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Advocate and s. Shruti Garg, Advocate, for the Through VC) Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing C r. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing Co r the respondents-Income Tax D *** BAL AL BAL AL, J. , J. , J. , J.(O (O (O (Oral ral ral ral) earned counsel for the parties a d to the same relief as has been ed 10.09.2026 passed in CWP- a and others. n the light of the above consen i Sareen’s case (supra), resulting 30.03.2023 issued to the petitio ct, 1961 alongwith consequential

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Ye Whether Reportable. : Ye AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA H WP WP WP WP-15835 15835 15835 15835-2025 2025 2025 2025 ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : 11.09. 11.09. 11.09. 11.09.2026 2026 2026 2026

...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE I TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE I TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE I TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE I

...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH e petitioner. Counsel with unsel, epartment.

agree that the petitioner would n granted through a judgment of -15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. nsus, the petition is allowed in g in quashing of the impugned oner under Section 148 of the l proceedings, if any. (DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) (SUNISH BINDLISH) (SUNISH BINDLISH) (SUNISH BINDLISH)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE es/No es/No

d f . n d e VANDANA YADAV 2026.09.13 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →