Jdm Builders And Developers Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Shri Krishnakanhaiya Mittal vs. Income Tax Officer

PDF · subscribers
WP/8218/2026HC Madhya Pradesh16 March 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA2 pages
For Petitioner: Ashish GoyalFor Respondent: Harsh Parashar[R-1]
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court overruled the office objection regarding territorial jurisdiction, finding that the cause of action arising within its territorial limits was sufficient to entertain the petition, notwithstanding the residence of one of the respondents outside its jurisdiction. Following this, the petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted the petitioner's request for withdrawal with liberty to raise all objections, including those concerning the limitation period for issuing notices under Section 148 and pecuniary jurisdiction, before the assessing authority. The authority was directed to decide all objections raised by the petitioner before proceeding further in the matter, in accordance with the law. No decision was made on the merits of the Section 148 notice itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, JDM Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore. The petition challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary issue raised by the registry was regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. The petitioner argued that the cause of action arose within the court's jurisdiction, even though one respondent resided outside it. The court overruled the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction. Subsequently, the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to raise all objections, including those related to the limitation of notice issuance and pecuniary jurisdiction, before the assessing authority.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, considering that the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction despite one respondent residing outside it? (Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the High Court, which is sufficient to maintain the petition, even if one of the respondents is located outside the territorial limits of the Bench. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's objection, as noted by the registry, pertained to the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. No specific arguments from the revenue are recorded in the judgment beyond this initial objection.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI ON THE 16th OF MARCH, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 8218 of 2026 JDM BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR SHRI KRISHNAKANHAIYA MITTAL Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Ashish Goyal - Advocate for the petitioner (through VC). Shri Harsh Parashar - Advocate (through VC) with Ms. Yashika Bondwal - Advocate for the respondent No.1. ORDER Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla 1. The matter is listed on the objection by the High Court regarding territorial jurisdiction. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, though one of the respondent is residing outside the jurisdiction of this Bench. 3. Considering the same, office objection regarding territorial jurisdiction is overruled. 4. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1 WP-8218-2026 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7066 Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Signing time: 3/16/2026 5:22:54 PM Signature Not Verified

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE (ALOK AWASTHI) JUDGE 1961. 5. After arguments, counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the petition with liberty to raise all objections including the question relating to limitation of the issuance of notices as well as the pecuniary jurisdiction before the authority. 6. Petition is disposed of with the said liberty. Three days' time is granted to file objections. On filing objections, the authority shall decide all the objections raised by the petitioner before proceeding further in the matter, in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid, petition is disposed of. trilok

2 WP-8218-2026 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7066 Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Signing time: 3/16/2026 5:22:54 PM Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →