HITENDRA SHARMA SON OF SHRI VISHNU SHARMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/7575/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02039286202224 January 2025Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryDisposed of

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the petition. The court noted that the petition had been pending since 2022 without any stay. The petitioner's counsel argued that the limitation period for reassessment for assessment year 2015-2016 had expired on 31.03.2023, and no order had been communicated. The respondent's counsel stated that if a reassessment order was passed, it would be communicated within four weeks, and if not, the department would proceed as per law. In light of these submissions, the court disposed of the petition, stating that the petitioner was at liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law for any surviving grievance. The court did not decide on the merits of the reassessment proceedings or the limitation issue.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Hitendra Sharma, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 19.03.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an order dated 29.03.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) rejecting objections, and a notice dated 30.03.2022 issued under Section 148 for the assessment year 2015-2016. The petition has been pending since 2022 without any stay. The petitioner argued that the limitation period for reassessment for AY 2015-2016 expired on 31.03.2023, and no order had been communicated. The respondent submitted that if a reassessment order was passed, it would be communicated within four weeks, otherwise, the department would proceed as per law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 19.03.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the order dated 29.03.2022 passed under Section 148A(d), and the notice dated 30.03.2022 issued under Section 148 for assessment year 2015-2016 are liable to be quashed on the grounds of limitation and non-communication of orders. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the limitation period for framing reassessment for assessment year 2015-2016 expired on 31.03.2023, and no order had been communicated to the petitioner as of the date of the hearing. The petitioner sought to quash the notices and order on this basis. Revenue's Contentions: The respondent submitted that in the event a reassessment order had already been passed, it would be communicated to the petitioner within four weeks. Otherwise, the department would proceed in accordance with the law.

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:3622-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7575/2022 Hitendra Sharma Son Of Shri Vishnu Sharma, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of D-192, Moti Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur 302015 ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur 302005 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka with Ms. Satwika Jha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi with Mr. N.S. Bhati and Mr. Aditya Khandelwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 24/01/2025 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of notice dated 19.03.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1960 (for brevity ‘the Act’), order dated 29.03.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act rejecting the objections filed and notice dated 30.03.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act for assessment year 2015-2016. 2. This petition is pending since 2022 and no stay was granted during pendency of the petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the limitation for framing re-assessment for the assessment year 2015-2016 has already been expired on 31.03.2023 and no order has been communicated to the petitioner as on date.

[2025:RJ-JP:3622-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-7575/2022] 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in case the re-assessment order has already been passed, the same would be communicated to the petitioner within four weeks and otherwise the department shall proceed in accordance with law. 5. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. Needless to say the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law for surviving grievance, if any. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J RIYA/MR/24

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →