RISHABH S vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JODHPUR-1

Facts

The petitioner, Rishabh S, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 25, 2026, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings. The petitioner sought to quash the notice, alleging it was invoked without following the law laid down by the High Court in R.K. Buildcreations. The petitioner also contended that the invocation of Section 148A Proviso (c) was illegal and requested proper notice. Further, the petitioner sought the disclosure of incriminating material used for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 2023-24, including hash values and chain of custody details. The petitioner also requested the opportunity to file preliminary submissions and for the respondents to follow departmental guidelines and the mandate of Section 148A and GKN Driveshaft.

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition based on joint submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was directed to file an application for taking on record his revised return filed pursuant to the notice under Section 148. The respondents were directed to consider this application along with the revised return and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The respondents were also directed to furnish all necessary documents to the petitioner, if any, that had not already been supplied. Upon receipt of these documents, the petitioner would be at liberty to file objections within fifteen days. The respondents would then consider and decide the matter strictly in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The Court explicitly stated that it had not examined the merits of the case and that the order should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notice dated March 25, 2026, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed and set aside for having been invoked without following the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in R.K. Buildcreations (supra)? (Question of law) 2. Whether the invocation of Section 148A Proviso (c) is illegal and incorrect, and if a proper notice as per Section 148A needs to be issued? (Question of mixed law and fact) 3. Whether the respondent No. 3 should be directed to first provide the incriminating material on the basis of which assessment for the year 2023-24 is sought to be reopened, including correct hash values and chain of custody details? (Question of procedure) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 was issued without following the law laid down in R.K. Buildcreations. The invocation of Section 148A Proviso (c) was also challenged as illegal. The petitioner sought disclosure of incriminating material and the opportunity to file preliminary submissions. Reliance was placed on departmental guidelines and the mandate of Section 148A and GKN Driveshaft. Revenue's Contentions: No specific contentions for the revenue were recorded in the judgment.