GOVERDHAN DAS MAHESHWARI S/O LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL MAHESHWARI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/2305/2020HC RajasthanRJHC02009703202030 July 2024Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the issue raised was no longer res integra and had been concluded by a Coordinate Bench in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and connected petitions. The Court also acknowledged that the petitioner's case was covered by the decision in Siddharth Totuka Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, a fact not disputed by the respondent. Consequently, the Court set aside the notice for reopening and all consequential orders, including the assessment orders. The petitioner was directed to submit a copy of this order to the Appellate Authority for the closure of the appeal case. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Goverdhan Das Maheshwari, filed a writ petition challenging the reopening of his assessment. The core of the petitioner's argument was that if the basis for reopening an assessment stems from material collected during a search, then the reopening must be done under Section 153-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and not under Section 148. The petitioner contended that this specific issue had been decided by a Coordinate Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shyam Sunder Khandelwal. The petitioner further stated that the present case was covered by another decision of the Coordinate Bench in Siddharth Totuka. The respondent did not dispute that the present case was covered by the Siddharth Totuka judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reopening of an assessment, based on material collected during a search, is permissible under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, or if it must be done strictly under Section 153-C of the Act? (Question of law and fact, turning on Sections 148 and 153-C). Assessee's Contentions: - The reopening of assessment is permissible only under Section 153-C when the basis for reopening is material collected during a search, and not under Section 148. - The present case is covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench in Siddharth Totuka Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. - The issue is no longer res integra and stands concluded by a common order in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Revenue's Contentions: - The respondent did not dispute that the present case is covered by the judgment in Siddharth Totuka (supra).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 153-C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2305/2020 Goverdhan Das Maheshwari S/o Late Shri Gopal Lal Maheshwari, 319, Gopalji Ka Rasta, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, New Central Revenue Building, Janpath, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dileep Shivpuri with Mr. Utkarsh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna Ms. Kriti Kalawatia HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 30/07/2024 1. Heard. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue raised in this petition is no longer res-Integra and stands concluded under a common order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this court on 19.03.2024 in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18363/2019) and connected petitions. 3. Learned counsel for the parties brings to the notice of this Court that an appeal has already been filed against the assessment order which was passed later on. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes an emphatic statement at the bar that the appeal is still pending and no orders have been passed in that appeal.

(2 of 2) [CW-2305/2020] 5. It is the case of the petitioner that where the basis for reopening is not material independent of a search but based on material collected during search, reopening would be permissible only in accordance with the provisions of Section 153-C and recourse could not be had to Section 148 of Income Tax Act. 6. The aforesaid issue has been considered and decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shyam Sunder Khandelwal (supra). 7. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that present case is covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench in Siddarth Totuka Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 14714/2019). 8. The fact that the present case is covered by the judgment in Siddarth Totuka (supra) is not disputed by counsel for the respondent. 9. In view of the above, we deem it proper to allow the writ petition and the notice as well as all consequential orders including orders of assessment are set aside. The petitioner shall submit a copy of this order before the Appellate Authority for closure of the appeal case. 10. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J ashu /22

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →