HANAMAN SINGH SON OF SHRI BHURA RAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/15907/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02086181202208 September 2025Bench: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the information available on the Income Tax Department's system, alleging a cash deposit of Rs. 50,40,000 in the petitioner's bank account for Assessment Year 2015-16, was erroneous. The Court relied on the petitioner's bank statement, which showed cash installations totaling Rs. 27,75,000, and a subsequent certificate from Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank confirming that the petitioner had only one savings bank account during the relevant financial year, with deposits amounting to Rs. 27,75,000. The Court found that the Revenue had not provided any evidence to counter the petitioner's submissions. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated March 26, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice dated March 29, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with all consequential notices and orders. The ratio decidendi is that if the Revenue's foundational information for initiating reassessment proceedings is demonstrably incorrect and unsubstantiated by any counter-evidence, the proceedings are vitiated.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Hanaman Singh, received a notice dated March 14, 2022, under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16. The notice alleged a cash deposit of Rs. 50,40,000 in his Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank account, stating the source remained unexplained. The petitioner replied, denying a deposit exceeding Rs. 50 lacs and asserting his income was from agriculture. He provided a bank statement showing four cash installations totaling Rs. 27,75,000 in July, August 2014. The Revenue proceeded to pass an order under Section 148A(d) on March 26, 2022, and issued a notice under Section 148 on March 29, 2022. The petitioner later submitted a bank certificate dated September 21, 2022, confirming only one savings bank account during the relevant financial year, with deposits totaling Rs. 27,75,000.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the information available on the Income Tax Department's system, indicating a cash deposit of Rs. 50,40,000 in the petitioner's bank account for Assessment Year 2015-16, is erroneous, and if so, whether the subsequent proceedings under Sections 148A(d) and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are liable to be quashed. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the information in the ITD system was incorrect. He contended that he had only one bank account and had deposited a total of Rs. 27,75,000, not Rs. 50,40,000. He relied on his bank statement and a certificate from the bank to substantiate his claim. He asserted that the Revenue failed to provide any evidence to disprove his statement. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue in response to the petitioner's arguments or the evidence presented.

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:35863-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15907/2022 Hanaman Singh Son Of Shri Bhura Ram, Having His Address At Dhani Buriyo Ki, Ward No. 10, Reengus, Sikar 332001 ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward Neem Ka Thana Having Its Address At Near Santoshi Mata Mandir, Chhawani Road, Khetri Mode, Godawas Road, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar 332713 ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Ranka with Mr. Rohan Chatter For Respondent : Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Mr. Palash Gupta HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 08/09/2025 1. In the notice dated 14th March 2022 for Assessment Year 2015-16, issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), it is alleged in the information annexed thereto that petitioner has deposited cash of Rs.50,40,000/- in Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank in two tranches of Rs.22,65,000/- and Rs.27,75,000/-, respectively. It is alleged in the notice that source of cash deposit in bank account remains unexplained and must be brought to tax. In the reply to the notice, the assessee has taken a stand that he has only one bank account in Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank and his income is from agricultural produce and that he has not deposited cash in excess of Rs.50 lacs in the bank account. He has also made available to the department a bank statement dated 21st March 2022, which indicates four cash installations on 10th July

[2025:RJ-JP:35863-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-15907/2022] 2014, 16th July 2014, 21st August 2014 and 23rd August 2014 totaling to Rs.27,75,000/-. 2. The Revenue instead of providing any other evidence to show that statement relied upon by petitioner is incorrect, has proceeded to pass impugned order dated 26th March 2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Act, followed by a notice dated 29th March 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. 3. Petitioner has also placed on record a certificate from Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank issued on 21st September 2022 certifying that petitioner had only one savings bank account during Financial Year 2014-15 pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16. The certificate is being introduced by way of misc. application (No.1/2022) to which there is no reply though copy has been served on Revenue. Therefore, considering the fact that there is only one bank account which indicates deposit of only Rs.27,75,000/-, we can safely conclude that the information available on ITD system that petitioner deposited Rs.50,40,000/-, is erroneous. 4. Petition, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), which reads as under: “Quash and set-aside the impugned illegal order dated 26.03.2022 passed u/s. 148A(d) of the Act & the impugned notice dated 29.03.2022 issued u/s. 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2015-16 and all consequential notices/orders passed in pursuance thereto;” 5. Consequently, misc. application also stands disposed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N.GANDHI/RAJAT/10

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →