JAI GOPAL DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/8022/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01045732202521 March 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that, in light of the consensus between the parties and following the judgment in Jyoti Sareen's case (supra), the petitioner was entitled to the same relief. The Court quashed the impugned notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of the parties to abide by the outcome of the Jyoti Sareen judgment, which had already granted relief in a similar matter. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to be bound by a precedent in a similar case, the court will extend that relief. The operative direction was to quash the notice and proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jai Gopal Developers Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The petition challenged an action taken by the revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax and others) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential proceedings. The High Court, in its order dated 11.09.2026, noted that the parties had agreed that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in a previous judgment in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India, dated 10.09.2026. This agreement was reached in light of a notice dated 30.03.2024 issued to the petitioner.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the 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 vs. Union of India, which involved similar circumstances and a notice issued under Section 148. The assessee relied on the judgment in Jyoti Sareen's case. Revenue's Contention: The revenue consented to the petitioner being granted the same relief as in the Jyoti Sareen case, indicating an agreement on the outcome based on the precedent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

120 120 120 120

IN T IN T IN T IN T

JAI GOPAL D JAI GOPAL D JAI GOPAL D JAI GOPAL D ASSISTANT ASSISTANT ASSISTANT ASSISTANT

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : M M fo (T **

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

DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMI PRIVATE LIMI PRIVATE LIMI PRIVATE LIMI VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOM COMMISSIONER OF INCOM COMMISSIONER OF INCOM COMMISSIONER OF INCOM

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. Rohit Kaura, Advocate, for the Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standi r the respondents-Income Tax D Through Video Conferencing) *** 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 30.03.2024 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-8022 8022 8022 8022-2025 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 ITED ITED ITED ITED ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ME TAX AND OTHERS ME TAX AND OTHERS ME TAX AND OTHERS ME TAX AND OTHERS

...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH e petitioner. ing Counsel Department.

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 11:25 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 →