SANDESH RATHI (HUF) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/9726/2024HC Rajasthan2026:RJ-JD:39428-DB13 August 2026Author: MUNNURI LAXMAN, SANGEETA SHARMA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that while the petitioner's counsel argued that proceedings under Section 153B of the Act were barred by limitation, there were no specific pleadings to this effect in the writ petition. The Court observed that the judgment in Tirupati Construction Company (supra) was based on the premise that recourse to Section 148 was made because proceedings under Section 153A were barred by limitation. However, in the present case, the petitioner approached the Court after the final assessment proceedings were concluded and more than a year after the notice was issued. Given this factual matrix and the availability of statutory appeal forums, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appropriate appeal before the Appellate Authority within 30 days, where all arguments and contentions could be raised. The Appellate Authority was directed to dispose of the appeal within three months.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sandesh Rathi (HUF), filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 31.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings, including an assessment order dated 30.03.2022. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 and TPS, Kalaburgi, is the respondent. The petitioner's grievance is that the assessment proceedings were reopened based on incriminating material found during search and seizure proceedings on another assessee's premises. The petitioner argued that if the department intended to proceed further, a notice under Section 153A of the Act should have been issued, not under Section 148. The petitioner also submitted that proceedings under Section 153C read with Section 153A were not initiated because they would be barred by limitation, leading to the issuance of the Section 148 notice. The petitioner relied on the judgment in Tirupati Construction Company Vs. Income Tax Officer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid when the proceedings that could have been initiated under Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Act are allegedly barred by limitation? Assessee's Contentions: - The proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153A of the Act, not Section 148. - Proceedings under Section 153C read with Section 153A were not initiated because they are barred by limitation, which led to the issuance of the Section 148 notice. - Relied on the judgment in Tirupati Construction Company Vs. Income Tax Officer. Revenue's Contentions: - No specific contentions are recorded for the revenue in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 153A,Section 153B,Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2026:RJ-JD:39428-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9726/2024 CNR: RJHC010414572024 | URN: CW / 19177U / 2024 Sandesh Rathi (Huf), R/o 1, 'Saket', Balaji Chowk Sadar Bazaar, Gulabpura, Bhilwara, Rajasthan, 311021, Through Karta Shri Sandesh Rathi, S/o Prahalad Rai Rathi, Aged 45 Years, R/o 1, 'Saket', Balaji Chowk Sadar Bazaar, Gulabpura, Bhilwara, Rajasthan, 311021 ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 and TPS, Income Tax Office, Aayakar Bhawan, Sedam Road, Kalaburgi (Gulbarga) Karnataka - 585105 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Gargieya through VC. Mr. Devang Gargieya. For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

Order 13/08/2026

1.

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the show cause notice dated 31.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) as well as other consequential proceedings, including the assessment order dated 30.03.2022. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the proceedings are sought to be reopened against the petitioner on the ground that during the search and seizure proceedings conducted on the premises of another assessee, some incriminating material was found and that such material is sought to be used for reopening of (Uploaded on 14/08/2026 at 05:46:31 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:44:34 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:39428-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-9726/2024] the assessment proceedings against the present petitioner. Therefore, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued. It is also his submission that if the Department intends to proceed further in the matter, a notice under Section 153(A) of the Act could have been issued but not under Section 148 of the Act.

3.

It is also submitted that the proceedings which could have been initiated under Section 153(C) of the Act read with Section 153(A) of the Act, have not been initiated for the reason that such proceedings under Section 153(B) are barred by limitation and, therefore, the notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act. By contending such arguments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the co- ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Tirupati Construction Company Vs. Income Tax Officer: D.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 17523 & 17651/2022, decided on 21.03.2024. 4. We have gone through the judgment rendered in the case of Tirupati Construction Company (supra). We find that there are no pleadings in the present petition that the proceedings under Section 153 (B) of the Act are barred by limitation. However, such a contention is raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the time of arguments.

5.

The true purport of the judgment in Tirupati Construction Company (supra) appears to be on the premise that recourse to Section 148 of the Act was made as the proceedings under Section 153 (A) of the Act was barred by limitation. On that ground, this Court was required to interfere in that writ petition. Be that as it may, the approach of the petitioner to this Court was (Uploaded on 14/08/2026 at 05:46:31 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:44:34 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:39428-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-9726/2024] made after the final assessment proceedings were concluded and that too after one year from the date of issuance of notice.

6.

In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual matrix, we are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition in view of the availability of statutory appeal/forum. Therefore, we leave it open for the petitioner to take recourse to the statutory remedy permissible under the Act. He is also permitted to raise all the arguments and contentions which he has canvassed before this Court.

7.

Liberty is given to the petitioner to file appropriate appeal before the Appellate Authority within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any appeal is filed by the petitioner within the stipulated period, the Appellate Authority is directed to dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of filing of the appeal.

8.

With the foregoing observations/requirements, the present writ petition is disposed of.

9.

All the pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (MUNNURI LAXMAN),J 12/Mohan Kishan Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 14/08/2026 at 05:46:31 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:44:34 AM)

More judgments on Section 148

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →