AMIT KOTAWALA SON OF SHRI BHAGWAN DAS AGARWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/10547/2021HC RajasthanRJHC02061560202131 May 2024Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,BHUWAN GOYAL2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue raised in the writ petition is squarely covered by its previous order dated 19.03.2024 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18363/2019 (Shyam Sunder Khandelwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and other connected petitions). Consequently, the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the impugned orders were quashed. The Court clarified that the respondents (revenue) are at liberty to proceed against the petitioner under Section 153C of the Act of 1961 in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is covered by a binding precedent of the same court, the same principle will apply. The operative direction is to quash the Section 148 notices and consequential orders, with liberty to proceed under Section 153C.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Amit Kotawala, proprietor of M/s. Authentic Stone Trading Co., filed a writ petition challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4, Jaipur. The respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The specific assessment year(s) are not recorded. The procedural history involves the issuance of Section 148 notices and subsequent orders, which are now under challenge before the High Court. The parties jointly submitted that the issue was covered by a previous order of the same court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential orders are valid and should be sustained? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the issue raised in the petition is squarely covered by the order dated 19.03.2024 passed by this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18363/2019- Shyam Sunder Khandelwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and other connected petitions, wherein similar notices and consequential orders were quashed. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not record any specific argument against the assessee's submission that the matter is covered by the precedent. They jointly submitted with the petitioner that the issue is covered by the aforementioned order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2024:RJ-JP:26318-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10547/2021 Amit Kotawala Son Of Shri Bhagwan Das Agarwal, Having His Address At Prop. M/s. Authentic Stone Trading Co., 9, Jamna Lal Bajaj Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302001. ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 4, Jaipur Having Its Address At Room No. 416, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-Ii, Bhawani Singh Road, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur 302005. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka Ms. Apeksha Bapna For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 31/05/2024 1. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that issue raised in these petition is squarely covered by order dated 19.03.2024 passed by this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18363/2019- Shyam Sunder Khandelwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and other connected petitions, wherein notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act of 1961”) and consequential orders have been quashed giving liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. 2. In view of the above submissions, notices issued under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 and the impugned orders are quashed. However, it is made clear that the respondents shall be (Uploaded on 03/06/2024 at 01:27:01 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:41:15 AM)

[2024:RJ-JP:26318-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-10547/2021] at liberty to proceed against the petitioner under Section 153C of the Act of 1961 in accordance with law. 3. The writ petition is accordingly, allowed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ N. Gandhi/Sunita/175 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 03/06/2024 at 01:27:01 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:41:15 AM)

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →