KRISHAN KUMAR SON OF SHRI JUNGLEE RAM YADAV vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

CW/10216/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02050296202314 September 2026Author: ARUN MONGA,ASHUTOSH KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that while the failure to serve mandatory notices or afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing can vitiate proceedings, the record indicated the petitioner had knowledge of the reassessment proceedings before their culmination. Specifically, the petitioner's application dated 14.12.2022 demonstrated awareness of the notices and initiated proceedings. Consequently, the Court found no violation of the principles of natural justice warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Income-tax Act was deemed a self-contained code with an effective statutory remedy of appeal. The petitioner was granted liberty to avail the appellate remedy against the assessment order dated 24.03.2023, with the time spent in pursuing the writ petition to be excluded for limitation purposes. The appellate authority was directed to entertain and decide the appeal on merits without raising objections as to limitation if filed within 30 days of the order's upload. All issues and contentions were left open for the appellate authority to decide.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Krishan Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 26.03.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a consequential notice dated 26.03.2022 under Section 148, and an assessment order dated 24.03.2023 under Sections 147 read with 144, assessing his total income at Rs. 69,56,000/- for Assessment Year 2015-16. The petitioner claimed non-receipt of these notices and orders, stating his PAN was not registered on the e-filing portal until 18.01.2023. Upon registering, he accessed the documents and subsequently filed replies on 19.01.2023 and 20.01.2023, raising objections about non-service and the merits of the assessment. The respondent revenue contended that the notices were sent to the petitioner's address and that the petitioner had knowledge of the proceedings, citing an application dated 14.12.2022.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated by the respondent revenue are vitiated due to non-service of mandatory notices under Section 148A(d) and Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, thereby violating principles of natural justice? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 148A and Section 148). Assessee's Contentions: - The initiating notices and the order under Section 148A(d) were not served physically or electronically, denying an effective opportunity to respond. - The Assessing Officer failed to consider preliminary objections and submitted material, treating the entire sale consideration as escaped income without accounting for indexed cost of acquisition and Section 54 exemption. - The alleged escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakh, thus the extended period of limitation under Section 149(1)(b) could not be invoked. Revenue's Contentions: - The writ petition is not maintainable as an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 246 of the Act is available. - The petition involves disputed questions of fact unsuitable for writ jurisdiction. - Notices were sent to the address furnished by the petitioner. - The petitioner had knowledge of the proceedings, evidenced by his application dated 14.12.2022, showing receipt of notices prior to e-filing portal registration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148,Section 147,Section 144,Section 54,Section 149(1)(b),Section 246

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2026:RJ-JP:36778-DB] 0HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10216/2023 CNR: RJHC020502962023 | URN: CW / 19357U / 2023 Krishan Kumar Son Of Shri Junglee Ram Yadav, Aged About 54 Years, R/o 228-B, Sumer Nagar, Jaipur- 302004. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1), Jaipur Having Its Address At Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur, 302005. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Satwika Jha for Mr. Siddharth Ranka For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Ms. Dhairya Agrawal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Order (Oral) 14/09/2026 Per: Arun Monga, J.

1.

The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 26.03.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), the consequential notice of even date issued under Section 148 for Assessment Year 2015–16, and the assessment order dated 24.03.2023 passed under Sections 147 read with 144 of the Act, whereby his total income was assessed at Rs. 69,56,000/-.

2.

The petitioner asserts that neither the notices nor the order were served upon him physically or through email/SMS, as his PAN was not registered on the I

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →