AJAY INFRAHOME PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/2337/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02011717202203 March 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,ANOOP KUMAR DHAND2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the issue involved was no longer res integra, as it had been decided by a Division Bench of the same Court in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions) on 27.01.2022. In that decision, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Following this precedent, the High Court held that the impugned notice issued in the present case was also invalid and impermissible in law for the reasons stated in the earlier order. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ajay Infrahome Private Limited, through its authorized signatory, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench. The petition challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1), Jaipur. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer and the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The petitioner argued that the issue was no longer res integra, citing a previous decision by a Division Bench of the same court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid and impermissible in law? Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the issue concerning the validity of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions) rendered on 27.01.2022, where such notices were found to be invalid and quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2337/2022 Ajay Infrahome Private Limited, Having Its Registered Address At 56, Govind Nagar (West) Amer Road, Jaipur 302002, Through Its Authorized Signatory Ajay Agarwal son of Shri Babu Lal Agarwal ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5 (1), Jaipur Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur 302005. 2. Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, Having Its Address At North Block, New Delhi - 110011 Through Its Chairman. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Ranka Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 03/03/2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset would submit that the issue involved in this petition is no longer res integra as it has been put to an end by Division Bench of this Court in the decision rendered on 27.01.2022 in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions) where the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been found to be invalid and impermissible in law and quashed. (Uploaded on 15/03/2022 at 03:20:27 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:46:02 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-2337/2022] In view of the above statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned notice issued in the present case, for the reasons stated in the order dated 27.01.2022 passed in the aforesaid cases, is also quashed and set aside and the petition is allowed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J MANOJ NARWANI /10 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 15/03/2022 at 03:20:27 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:46:02 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 →