The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the petitioner's writ petition based on consensus that he is entitled to relief granted in Jyoti Sareen, quashing a Section 148 notice.
Quashing of the impugned notice dated 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP-10509-2025 (O&M)
130
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-10509-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.09.2026
Sumit Bansal
...Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Ludhiana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH
Present: Ms. Ubhai Bharti Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent(s)-revenue.
DEEPAK SIBAL, J.(Oral)
(DEEPAK SIBAL)
JUDGE
(SUNISH BINDLISH) JUDGE
11.09.2026
Harish Kumar
| Whether speaking / reasoned: |
Yes | No |
|---|---|---|
| Whether Reportable : | Yes | No |
HARISH KUMAR 2026.09.12 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-1-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition can be allowed based on consensus that the petitioner is entitled to same relief as in Jyoti Sareen.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jyoti SareenFollowed¶1
CWP-15791-2024 Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sumit Bansal
Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Ludhiana
DEEPAK SIBAL
SUNISH BINDLISH
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
