LATE SHRI RAFIQ AHMED QUERASHI SON OF LATE SHRI ABDUL SHAKOOR vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

PDF · subscribers
CW/3667/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02016300202327 January 2025Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the writ petition deserved acceptance on the single issue of the re-assessment for assessment year 2015-16 being time-barred. The reasoning was that the limitation for the assessment year 2015-16 expired on 31.03.2022, and the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 28.07.2022. This date falls after the expiry of the limitation period. The Tribunal found the case indistinguishable from the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal, which supported the assessee's contention regarding the expiry of limitation. Consequently, the impugned notices were liable to be quashed on this ground alone. The Tribunal did not address other issues raised in the petition. The operative direction was to allow the writ petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, represented by his legal heir, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 28.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a notice dated 28.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. The assessment year in question is 2015-16, for which the petitioner had declared an income of Rs. 5,69,630/-. Initially, a notice under Section 148 was issued on 12.04.2021. Following a Supreme Court directive in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal, notices were deemed to be under Section 148A(b), and information was provided to the assessee. The petitioner's objections were rejected on 28.07.2022, leading to the issuance of the impugned notice under Section 148.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the re-assessment proceedings for assessment year 2015-16 are time-barred, considering the limitation period expired on 31.03.2022, and the notice under Section 148 was issued on 28.07.2022? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the limitation for assessment year 2015-16 expired on 31.03.2022. They rely on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal, where a concession for dropping proceedings for assessment year 2015-16 was reportedly given. The petitioner contends that the notice under Section 148, issued on 28.07.2022, is therefore invalid as it falls beyond the limitation period. Revenue's Contention: The respondents acknowledge that there are other issues raised in the petition but state they are not in a position to distinguish the present case from the decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JP:3775-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3667/2023 Late Shri Rafiq Ahmed Querashi Son Of Late Shri Abdul Shakoor, Through His Legal Heir Shri Shafiq Ahmed Resident Of 960, Hakim Ji Ki Gali, Moti Doongri, Road, Jaipur, 302001 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, Having Its Address At North Block, New Delhi, Through Its Chairman. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, C- Scheme, Jaipur - 302005. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka with Mr. Rohan Chatter For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Mr. Palash Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 27/01/2025 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 28.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). Further prayer is for quashing of notice dated 28.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner had filed returns for assessment year 2015-16 declaring income of Rs. 5,69,630/-. On 12.04.2021 notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act. The issue as to whether after Finance Act, 2021, the notice could have

[2025:RJ-JP:3775-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-3667/2023] been issued under unamended Section 148 of the Act without following the procedure laid down under Section 148A of the Act was subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal reported in 2023(1)SCC 617. It was directed that notices issued under Section 148 of the Act shall be deemed to be under Section 148A (b) and Assessing Officer shall within thirty days provide information and material to assessee. The direction of the supreme court were complied vide notice dated 26.05.2022. The objections filed by the petitioner were rejected on 28.07.2022 and the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in (2024) 469 ITR 46.It is argued that the limitation for assessment year 2015-16 expired on 31.03.2022. Contention is that concession for dropping proceeding for assessment year 2015-16 was given by respondent before the supreme court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). Argument is that for assessment year 2015-16 the limitation expired on 31.03.2022 whereas the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 28.07.2022. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there are other issues raised in this petition but is not in a position to distinguish the present case from the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). 5. The contention that there are other issues raised in this petition need not be addressed as the petition deserves

[2025:RJ-JP:3775-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-3667/2023] acceptance on the single issue that the re-assessment for assessment year 2015-16 has been rendered time barred and impugned notices are liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 6. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J RIYA/23 Whether Reportable : No

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →