RAKESH KUMAR GOKHROO (AY 2014-15) S/O SHRI PARAS CHAND GOKHROO vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/14030/2025HC RajasthanRJHC02078803202517 September 2025Author: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANJEET PUROHIT2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Civil Writ Petition was premature. The Court observed that only notices under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had been issued, and the petitioner had the opportunity to file a reply to these notices. The Court further stated that the respondents (income tax authorities) would be required to pass a speaking order after considering the petitioner's reply and providing a hearing. Based on the prematurity of the petition, the Court dismissed the writ petition. No decision was made on the merits of the Section 271E proceedings themselves, as the challenge was to the procedural stage.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar Gokhroo, for Assessment Year 2014-15, filed a Civil Writ Petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. The petition challenged notices issued under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents were the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur, and other income tax authorities. The petitioner was represented by his Power of Attorney Holder, Shri Paras Chand Gokhroo. The petition was filed against the issuance of notices, implying a challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 271E.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Civil Writ Petition is maintainable at the stage when only notices under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been issued, and the petitioner has not yet filed a reply or participated in the adjudication process? (Question of law and procedure) Assessee's contention: The petition was filed challenging the notices under Section 271E. (Implied by filing the writ petition at this stage). Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether the Income Tax Authorities are required to pass a speaking order after considering the petitioner's reply and providing a hearing? (Question of procedural fairness). Assessee's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271E

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2025:RJ-JP:37883-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14030/2025 Rakesh Kumar Gokhroo (AY 2014-15) S/o Shri Paras Chand Gokhroo, Aged About 49 Years, R/o 302, Royal Ensign, Prithviraj Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur Through Power of Attorney Holder Shri Paras Chand Gokhroo S/o Late Raj Mal Gokhroo, Aged 73 Years, R/o 302, Royal Ensign, Prithviraj Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur- 302001. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, 416, 4th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, LIC Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur-302005. 2. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Aayakar Bhawan, Paota-C Road, Jodhpur-342010, Rajasthan. 3. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur-302005, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanuj Agrawal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Meyhul Mittal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order 17/09/2025

1.

This petition is completely premature as only notices under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been issued, to which the petitioner may file reply.

[2025:RJ-JP:37883-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-14030/2025]

2.

It is of course need not be mentioned that the respondents shall pass a speaking order on the basis of the reply and hearing to be provided to the petitioner.

3.

Accordingly, the present Civil Writ Petition is dismissed in view of the aforesaid observations.

4.

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J AMIT/55

More judgments on Section 271E

All 968 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271E →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →