PRAMOD GOYAL S/O SHRI TULSA DAS SHRINIVAS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4 JAIPUR, INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/10430/2021HC RajasthanRJHC02060653202108 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Court respectfully agreed with the findings in the case of Shyam Sunder Khandelwal (supra). The Court declined the Revenue's request to adjourn the matter sine die pending the decision of the SLP. The reasoning provided was twofold: firstly, the Court agreed with the findings of its co-ordinate bench in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal, and secondly, it stated that if the Revenue were to succeed in the Apex Court, it could request the Apex Court for the revival of the notice. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 24th March 2020 was quashed and set aside. The Court clarified that if the Revenue succeeds in the Apex Court in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal, it may take such steps as advised, in accordance with law. The petition was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pramod Goyal, is challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The notice was issued after a search was conducted, and the Assessing Officer relied on material seized during the search. The petitioner contends that the Assessing Officer should have issued a notice under Section 153C of the Act instead of Section 148. The respondent Revenue acknowledges that the issue is similar to a previous case, Shyam Sunder Khandelwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, which was decided by the same court. The Revenue has filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the judgment in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal and has been granted notice after condonation of delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, could be validly issued by the Assessing Officer on the basis of material seized during a search, or if a notice under Section 153C of the Act was mandatory. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argues that following a search, the Assessing Officer erred in issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act. Instead, based on the material seized during the search, the Assessing Officer ought to have issued a notice under Section 153C of the Act. The assessee relies on the judgment of this Court in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue acknowledges that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal. However, the Revenue states that it has challenged the order in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal by way of an SLP before the Supreme Court, and notice has been issued after condoning the delay. The Revenue requests that the matter be adjourned 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:35838-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10430/2021 Pramod Goyal S/o Shri Tulsa Das Shrinivas, Aged About 58 Years, R/o A-2, Nandanam Apartment-I, B2 First Floor, Tilak Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur 302005 ----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 on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, Senior Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Sarvesh Jain, Mr. Meyhul Mittal & Mr. Rahul Kumar HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order 08/09/2025

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 Assessing Officer ought to have issued a notice under Section 153C of the Act. 1 [2024] 161 taxmann.com 255 (Rajasthan)

[2025:RJ-JP:35838-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-10430/2021]

3.

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

4.

Mr. 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 24th 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 N.GANDHI/RAJAT/8

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →