SHREYANSH MEHTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), UDAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
CW/3299/2023HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:8519-DB12 February 2025Bench: PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with directions to the Assessing Officer to decide the proceedings in accordance with law. The Court specifically directed the Assessing Officer to take into consideration the ratio laid down in the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents. The operative direction was for the Assessing Officer to proceed while adhering to the precedent set by the Apex Court and the concession made by the revenue. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, as the matter was resolved based on the conceded position and the binding precedent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shreyansh Mehta, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur challenging a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued on July 27, 2022. The petitioner argued that the limitation period for Assessment Year 2015-16 had expired. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, where the revenue had conceded to drop proceedings for Assessment Year 2015-16 due to expired limitation. The respondent Income Tax Officer and the Central Board of Direct Taxes were the respondents. The procedural history involves the issuance of the Section 148 notice after the limitation period.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16 is barred by limitation. (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the limitation period for Assessment Year 2015-16 had expired. They relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, wherein the revenue had given a concession to drop proceedings for the said assessment year due to expired limitation. The notice under Section 148 was issued on 27.07.2022, which was after the expiry of the limitation period. Revenue's Contentions: The respondent revenue was unable to refute the submissions made by the petitioner. They requested that the petition be disposed of with directions to the concerned Assessing Officer to consider the assurance given in the Rajeev Bansal case regarding not carrying forward notices that had exceeded the limitation period for Assessment Year 2015-16.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JD:8519-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3299/2023 Shreyansh Mehta S/o Shri Shanti Lal Mehta, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of 98, L Road Bhupalpura, Udaipur 313001 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Udaipur, Having Its Address At Aaykar Bhawan, Subcity Centre, Savina, Udaipur 313001 2. 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 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka (through VC). For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa. HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI Order 12/02/2025 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. 1.1 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. (Uploaded on 27/02/2025 at 04:46:12 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:17:24 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:8519-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-3299/2023] 1.2 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. 2. 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.

(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 51-Zeeshan Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 27/02/2025 at 04:46:12 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:17:24 PM)

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →