ANKUR ELECTRICALS LLP vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/11899/2021HC RajasthanRJHC02068800202109 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal respectfully agreed with the findings of the co-ordinate bench in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal (supra). The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, could not have been issued and the Assessing Officer ought to have issued a notice under Section 153C of the Act. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's request for adjournment, stating that if the Revenue succeeds before the Supreme Court, it can request the Apex Court for revival of the notice. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 23rd March 2020 was quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of with a clarification that if the Revenue succeeds in the Apex Court in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal (supra), it may take such steps as advised, in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ankur Electricals LLP, is challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4, Jaipur, following a search operation. The petitioner contends that the Assessing Officer erred in issuing the notice under Section 148, arguing that it should have been issued under Section 153C of the Act, based on material seized during the search. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the issuance of the impugned notice and the present writ petition before the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was validly issued, or whether the Assessing Officer ought to have issued a notice under Section 153C of the Act, considering the search conducted and material seized. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argues that the notice under Section 148 was incorrectly issued. Based on material seized during a search, the Assessing Officer should have proceeded under Section 153C of the Act. The assessee relies on the judgment in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue acknowledges that the order in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal (supra) has been challenged by way of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, and notice has been issued after condoning the delay. The Revenue requests an adjournment sine die until the SLP is decided.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2025:RJ-JP:36230-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11899/2021 Ankur Electricals Llp, (Erstwhile Ankur Electricals Private Limited), A-27/13A Akshat House, Kanti Chandra Road, Bani Park, Jaipur 302016 Through Its Partner Padam Chand Jain S/o Kapoor Chand Jain, Aged About 59 Years, R/o A-24-25, Van Vihar Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302018. ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 4 Jaipur, Income Tax, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005. ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Rajat Sharma with Mr. Saksham Pandey For Respondent : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Rahul Kumar HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order 09/09/2025

1.

Mr. Rajat Sharma states that the issue in this matter is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax1. 2. Mr. Rajat Sharma submitted that after a search was conducted, the Assessing Officer on the basis of material seized during the search, issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) on the assessee. The Court held that such a notice could not have been issued and 1 [2024] 161 taxmann.com 255 (Rajasthan)

[2025:RJ-JP:36230-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-11899/2021] Assessing Officer ought to have issued a notice under Section 153C of the Act.

3.

We would respectfully agree with the findings in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal (supra).

4.

Mr. Siddharth Bapna says that the Revenue has challenged the order in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal (supra) by way of SLP and notice has been issued after condoning delay. Mr. Bapna says, therefore, this matter be adjourned sine die, until the SLP is decided.

5.

We do not wish to follow the course suggested by Mr. Bapna because; (a) we agree with the findings of our Co-ordinate Bench in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal (supra); and (b) if at all the Revenue succeeds in the Apex Court, certainly Revenue can request the Apex Court for revival of the notice.

6.

Accordingly, impugned notice dated 23rd March 2020 is hereby quashed and set aside.

7.

Petition disposed.

8.

We clarify that in case Revenue succeeds in the Apex Court in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal (supra), it may take such steps, as advised, in accordance with law. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ KAMLESH KUMAR-RAHUL/27

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →