GANPATI MULTI COMMODITY BUSINESS INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of both writ petitions in light of the adjudication made in the case of Shreyansh Mehta v. Income Tax Officer & Anr. The Court noted that the controversy raised in the instant writ petitions stood resolved by the decision in Shreyansh Mehta's case. In that precedent, the Court had disposed of a similar petition with directions to the Assessing Officer to decide the proceedings in accordance with law, taking into consideration the ratio laid down in the Supreme Court's case of Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal and the submissions made by the respondents. Specifically, the Court acknowledged that the revenue had conceded to dropping proceedings for Assessment Year 2015-16 in Rajeev Bansal's case due to the expired limitation period. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to take into consideration this assurance and the ratio of Rajeev Bansal's case. All pending applications were also disposed of.
What were the facts?
These two writ petitions, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4280/2023 (Ganpati Multi Commodity Business India Pvt. Ltd.) and D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 895/2023 (Prabhat Multitrade Private Limited), challenge actions taken by the Income Tax Department. The petitioners are companies, and the respondents include the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur, the Income Tax Officer, Ward No.-1, Sriganganagar/Bhilwara, and the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The core issue revolves around notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitions were filed seeking resolution of the controversy based on prior judicial pronouncements.
What were the issues?
1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16, which were issued after the expiry of the limitation period, are valid and can be proceeded with? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the limitation period for Assessment Year 2015-16 had expired. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, where the revenue conceded to dropping proceedings for Assessment Year 2015-16 due to the expired limitation period. The notices under Section 148 were issued on 27.07.2022 (for Ganpati Multi Commodity Business India Pvt. Ltd.) and 23.07.2022 (for Prabhat Multitrade Private Limited), after the limitation period had passed. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by learned counsel Mr. K.K. Bissa, was unable to refute the submissions made by the assessee and requested that the petitions be disposed of with directions to the Assessing Officer to consider the assurance given in the Rajeev Bansal case regarding notices exceeding the limitation period for Assessment Year 2015-16.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 04/04/2025
Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the controversy raised in the instant writ petitions stands resolved in view of the adjudication made by this Court in the case of Shreyansh Mehta v. Income Tax Officer & Anr. [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3299/2023 on 12.02.2025; holding thus:
“1. At the outset, Mr. Siddharth Ranka, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal reported in (2024) 469 ITR 46.
1 Learned counsel further submits that the limitation period for the Assessment Year 2015-16 has expired, and therefore, in Rajeev Bansal’s case (supra), the respondents had given a concession before the Hon'ble Apex Court to drop the proceedings for Assessment Year 2015-16.
2 Learned counsel also submits that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued on 27.07.2022, after expiry of the limitation period.
Mr. K.K. Bissa, learned counsel representing the respondents is unable to refute the aforesaid submissions and requests that the petition be disposed of with directions to the concerned Assessing Officer to take into consideration the assurance given by the respondents in the case of Rajeev Bansal’s case (supra) of not carrying forward the notices, that have exceeded the limitation period for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 3. In view of the above submissions, the present petition is disposed of with the directions to the Assessing Officer to decide the proceedings in accordance with law, taking into consideration the ratio laid down in Rajeev Bansal’s case (supra) and the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents. All pending application, if any, stand disposed of.” (Uploaded on 08/04/2025 at 02:42:57 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:20:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17570-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-4280/2023]
Learned counsel for the petitioners further, submits that the notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act were issued on 29.07.2022 (in DBCWP No.4280/2023) and 23.07.2022 (in DBCWP No.895/2023) respectively.
In light of the aforementioned joint submissions, the writ petitions are hereby disposed of in the light of the decision rendered vide order dated 12.02.2025 passed in Shreyansh Mehta's case (supra) on the same terms. All pending applications also stand disposed of. (SUNIL BENIWAL),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 30-31 Zeeshan Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 08/04/2025 at 02:42:57 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:20:39 PM)
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
