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

PDF · subscribers
CWP/16049/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01086631202528 May 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that in light of the consensus between the parties and following the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case (supra), the petition should be allowed. The court agreed that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned judgment. Consequently, the impugned notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings arising therefrom were quashed. The court's reasoning was based on the agreement of the parties and the application of the principle of parity with the earlier judgment. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, 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 was a notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The procedural history indicates that the parties agreed that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in a previous judgment of the High Court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that they should be granted the same relief as was provided in the case of Jyoti Sareen (supra). While not explicitly detailed, this implies the assessee believed the grounds for relief in the Jyoti Sareen case were applicable to their situation. Revenue's contention: The revenue, represented by senior and junior standing counsel, did not record any specific arguments against the assessee's claim for relief based on the precedent. The judgment notes that learned counsel for the parties agreed to the same relief.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

144 144 144 144

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 OTHER AND OTHER AND OTHER AND 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 AT AT AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH 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-16049 16049 16049 16049-2025 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 →