KAMAL KHANDELWAL (AY 2017-18) S/O SHRI AMBA PRASAD KHANDELWAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/10588/2025HC RajasthanRJHC02059240202522 August 2025Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANJEET PUROHIT2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the statutory remedy available under the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be bypassed. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the scope for entertaining cases relating to orders passed under Section 148 of the Act is limited. The Court found no question of law or jurisdictional issue that required examination at that stage, leaving all grounds open to the petitioner before the appellate authority. Therefore, the High Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kamal Khandelwal, filed a writ petition challenging proceedings initiated under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the petitioner for AY 2018-2019 on March 20, 2024. Subsequently, an assessment order was passed on February 14, 2025. The petitioner also challenged notices issued under Sections 271AAC(1), 271D, and 271E of the Act. The petition was filed without availing the statutory remedies available under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court, in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, should entertain a challenge to proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when statutory remedies are available. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the assessment order and penalty notices without availing the statutory appeal mechanism. Revenue's Contention: The revenue implicitly argued, through the court's reasoning, that the statutory remedy should be pursued. The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the revenue beyond the implication of the court's decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 148,Section 271AAC(1),Section 271D,Section 271E

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JP:33219-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10588/2025 Kamal Khandelwal (Ay 2017-18) S/o Shri Amba Prasad Khandelwal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o D-86, Pawan Path, Opposite Gurudwara, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan -302021. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Office Of Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 4, Room No. 416, 4th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi 2, LIC Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302005. 2. Director General Of Income Tax (Investigation), 2nd Floor, NCR Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302005. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vedant Agarwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. Mr. Meyhul Mittal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 22/08/2025 1. The challenge is to the proceedings initiated against the petitioner based on information received during search proceedings under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1961’). Notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 on 20.03.2024 for AY 2018-2019. Thereafter, assessment order has been passed on 14.02.2025. Without availing the statutory remedy available under the Act of 1961, the present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 14.02.2025 along with the notice issued to

[2025:RJ-JP:33219-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-10588/2025] petitioner under Section 271AAC(1), 271D and 271E of the Act of 1961. 2. We are of the opinion that the statutory remedy as available under the Act of 1961 cannot be bypassed and while hearing petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India we have a limited scope of jurisdiction to entertain the cases relating to orders passed under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. At this stage, we are not required to enter into the factual aspects. We do not find that any question of law is required to be examined by us or any jurisdictional issue in the present case leaving it open to take up all grounds as available to him before the Appellate Authority. We are not inclined to entertain the present petition. 3. Accordingly, the present civil writ petition is dismissed. 4. Stay application also stands disposed. 5. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J HEENA/MAHIMA/198

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →