RAVI MALIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/8266/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01046236202528 March 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,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 the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others (CWP-15791-2024), the petition should be allowed. The Court found that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as granted in the cited case. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 23.02.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential assessment proceedings were quashed. The Court's decision was based on the agreement of the parties and the prior judicial pronouncement, without delving into the merits of the assessment itself. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ravi Malik, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The petition challenged an action taken by the respondents, including the Union of India and the Income Tax Department. The specific action under challenge was a notice dated 23.02.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential assessment proceedings. The High Court noted that the parties had agreed that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in a previous judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. This agreement was reached in light of a prior consent order in Jyoti Sareen's case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice dated 23.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential assessment proceedings are liable to be quashed? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on 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 and others, citing a previous judgment and a consent order in that matter. The assessee sought the quashing of the notice and consequential proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Sr. Standing Counsel, agreed with the assessee's submission that the petitioner should be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. The revenue consented to the quashing of the impugned notice and consequential proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

268 268 268 268

IN T IN T IN T IN T

RAVI MALIK RAVI MALIK RAVI MALIK RAVI MALIK UNION OF IN UNION OF IN UNION OF IN UNION OF IN

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : 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 AT AT AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH

CW CW CW CW Da Da Da Da

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS NDIA AND ORS NDIA AND ORS NDIA AND ORS NDIA AND ORS

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. M.S. Kanda, Advocate, for the Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing C 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 23.02.2024 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-8266 8266 8266 8266-2025 2025 2025 2025 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

...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH e petitioner. Counsel 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 2026.09.17 15:26 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 →