GIRDHAR GOPAL MUNDRA S/O LATE SHRI GOPI KRISHNA MUNDRA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Facts

The petitioner, Girdhar Gopal Mundra, filed two writ petitions challenging notices issued under Section 148 (dated 24.03.2020) and Section 143(2) (dated 24.02.2021) of the Income Tax Act. The respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner contended that similar writ petitions had been disposed of by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of 'Shyam Sunder Khandelwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax' and other connected matters on 19.03.2024. The respondent did not dispute this fact. The Court considered it proper to dispose of the present writ petitions in light of the aforementioned judgment.

Held

The High Court decided to dispose of the writ petitions in light of the judgment and order dated 19.03.2024 passed in the case of 'Shyam Sunder Khandelwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax' and other connected matters. Consequently, both the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and the impugned notice dated 24.02.2021 issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act were quashed. The Court, however, granted liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar matter has been decided by a coordinate bench, the present matter should follow that precedent. The operative direction was to quash the notices, with liberty to the revenue to proceed afresh.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notices issued under Section 148 and Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are liable to be quashed in light of the Division Bench judgment in 'Shyam Sunder Khandelwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax'. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the present writ petitions should be disposed of in terms of the Division Bench judgment of the High Court in 'Shyam Sunder Khandelwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax' and other connected matters, passed on 19.03.2024, as the facts are similar. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not dispute the fact that similar writ petitions were disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court. Therefore, no specific argument was recorded for the revenue on the merits of the case.