KISHAN LAL PRAJAPATI SON OF SHRI GOPI RAM PRAJAPATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
CW/1154/2025HC RajasthanRJHC02002172202520 February 2025Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned orders and notice. The Tribunal found that the reassessment proceedings for assessment year 2015-16 were rendered time-barred. The reasoning was based on the fact that the limitation period for the assessment year 2015-16 expired on 31.03.2022, whereas the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued on 30.07.2022. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46, which supported the assessee's contention that the proceedings were beyond the statutory time limit. The Court deemed it unnecessary to address other issues raised in the petition, as the petition deserved acceptance on the sole ground of the reassessment being time-barred. The operative direction was to quash the impugned notices and orders.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kishan Lal Prajapati, filed a writ petition challenging orders passed under Sections 147 and 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a notice issued under Section 148. The assessment year in question is 2015-16, for which the petitioner declared an income of Rs. 10,47,920/-. Initially, a notice under Section 148 was issued on 26.06.2021. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal, which directed notices issued under the unamended Section 148 to be treated as under Section 148A(b), a fresh notice was issued on 29.05.2022. The petitioner's objections were rejected on 30.07.2022, leading to the issuance of the impugned notice under Section 148. The petition was filed before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings for assessment year 2015-16 are time-barred, given that the limitation expired on 31.03.2022, while the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued on 30.07.2022? Assessee's Contentions: - The petitioner argues that the limitation for assessment year 2015-16 expired on 31.03.2022. - Reliance is placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46. - It is contended that the respondent had conceded to dropping proceedings for assessment year 2015-16 in the Rajeev Bansal case. - The issuance of the Section 148 notice on 30.07.2022, after the expiry of the limitation period, renders the proceedings invalid. Revenue's Contentions: - The learned counsel for the respondent acknowledges that there are other issues raised in the petition but is unable to distinguish the present case from the decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JP:7718-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1154/2025 Kishan Lal Prajapati Son Of Shri Gopi Ram Prajapati, Resident Of Plot No. 3, Mahadev Nagar, 22 Godam, Nandpuri, Jaipur-302021 ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1) Jaipur, Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur-302005 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka, Adv. with Mr. Rohan Chatter, Adv. & Ms. Apeksha Bapna, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Bhati, Adv. with Mr. Aditya Khandelwal, Adv. for Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 20/02/2025 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 21.05.2023 passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and order dated 30.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act. Further prayer is for quashing of notice dated 30.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner had filed returns for assessment year 2015-16 declaring income of Rs. 10,47,920/-. On 26.06.2021 notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act. The issue as to whether after Finance Act, 2021, the notice could have been issued under unamended Section 148 of the Act without following the procedure laid down under Section 148A of the Act was subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal reported in 2023(1)SCC 617. It was

[2025:RJ-JP:7718-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-1154/2025] directed that notices issued under Section 148 of the Act shall be deemed to be under Section 148A (b) and Assessing Officer shall within thirty days provide information and material to assessee. The direction of the supreme court were complied vide notice dated 29.05.2022. The objections filed by the petitioner were rejected on 30.07.2022 and the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in (2024) 469 ITR 46.It is argued that the limitation for assessment year 2015-16 expired on 31.03.2022. Contention is that concession for dropping proceeding for assessment year 2015-16 was given by respondent before the supreme court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). Argument is that for assessment year 2015-16 the limitation expired on 31.03.2022 whereas the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 30.07.2022. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there are other issues raised in this petition but is not in a position to distinguish the present case from the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). 5. The contention that there are other issues raised in this petition need not be addressed as the petition deserves acceptance on the single issue that the re-assessment for assessment year 2015-16 has been rendered time barred and impugned notices are liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 6. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Mohita/Chandan/44

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →