IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.251 CWP-26045-2024 Date of decision: 10.09.2026 Sat Pal ….Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward 5(5), Chandigarh and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing counsel and Ms. Kavita, Advocate for the respondents. * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the petitioner would also be entitled to the same relief as has been granted through a judgment of this Court dated 10.09.2026 passed in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. 2. In the light of the above consensus, the petition is allowed in terms of Jyoti Sareen’s case (supra), resulting in quashing of the impugned notice dated 27.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alongwith consequential proceedings, if any. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) JUDGE September 10, 2026 Jyoti 1 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No JYOTI SHARMA 2026.09.13 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.251 CWP-26045-2024 Date of decision: 10.09.2026 Sat Pal ….Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward 5(5), Chandigarh and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing counsel and Ms. Kavita, Advocate for the respondents. * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the petitioner would also be entitled to the same relief as has been granted through a judgment of this Court dated 10.09.2026 passed in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. 2. In the light of the above consensus, the petition is allowed in terms of Jyoti Sareen’s case (supra), resulting in quashing of the impugned notice dated 27.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alongwith consequential proceedings, if any. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) JUDGE September 10, 2026 Jyoti 1 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No JYOTI SHARMA 2026.09.13 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document