SEEMA BISHNOI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/22008/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01116369202425 September 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in terms of a consent order and in light of the judgment in Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India (CWP-15791-2024), allowed the petition. The Court held that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the cited case. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 26.03.2024, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings arising therefrom, were quashed. The reasoning is based on the consensus between the parties and the application of the precedent established in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that where a similar case has been decided by the High Court and the revenue consents, the same relief should be extended to the petitioner in a subsequent, similar petition. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Seema Bish, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The petition challenged an order or action by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, related to assessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the parties agreed to a consent order, referencing a previous judgment in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India). This prior judgment, dated 10.09.2026, had granted relief to the petitioner in that case. The current petition was disposed of based on this consensus.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India (CWP-15791-2024), in light of the impugned notice dated 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued, through their counsel, that they should be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. This implies a reliance on the principle of parity and the specific facts and legal grounds that led to the relief in that precedent. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, agreed to the petitioner's prayer, consenting to the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case. This indicates the revenue did not contest the application of the precedent to the present case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

261 261 261 261

IN T IN T IN T IN T

SEEMA BISH SEEMA BISH SEEMA BISH SEEMA BISH DEPUTY COM DEPUTY COM DEPUTY COM DEPUTY COM

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : M

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 2 Income Tax Ac

14.09 14.09 14.09 14.09.2026 .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

HNOI HNOI HNOI HNOI

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS MMISSIONER OF INCOME T MMISSIONER OF INCOME T MMISSIONER OF INCOME T MMISSIONER OF INCOME T 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. Sunil K. Mukhi, Advocate, for Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Jr. Standin r the respondents.

*** 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 26.03.2024 issued to the petitio ct, 1961 alongwith consequential

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Ye Whether Reportable. : Ye

AB AND AB AND AB AND AB AND HARYANA HARYANA HARYANA HARYANA H WP WP WP WP-22008 22008 22008 22008-2024 2024 2024 2024 ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : 14.09. 14.09. 14.09. 14.09.2026 2026 2026 2026

...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER TAX TAX TAX TAX ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH r the petitioner. Counsel with ng Counsel, 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 2026.09.15 14:29 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 →