SANJAY MANGAL SON OF SHRI KAILASH CHAND MANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/2369/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02011730202203 March 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,ANOOP KUMAR DHAND2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the same court on January 27, 2022, in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch). In that precedent, 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 binding precedent, the High Court held that the impugned notice issued in the present case, for the reasons stated in the order dated January 27, 2022, was also invalid and impermissible. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar notice has been quashed by a coordinate bench on established grounds, subsequent identical notices should also be quashed without re-examining the merits.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sanjay Mangal, proprietor of Maya Construction, 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. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Jaipur, and the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The petitioner contended that the issue was already decided by a Division Bench of the same court in a previous case, Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr., where similar notices were quashed. The court was asked to quash the impugned notice based on this precedent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the petitioner is invalid and impermissible in law, considering the recent pronouncement of this Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch)? Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the issue is no longer res integra, as a Division Bench of the High Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. has already held notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to be invalid and quashed them. Therefore, the impugned notice in the present case should also be quashed on the same grounds. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments presented by 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. 2369/2022 Sanjay Mangal son of Shri Kailash Chand Mangal, Aged About 58 years, Prop. of Maya Construction, Resident of 8, Mozi Colony, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur 302017. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6 (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 03:21:21 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:03:30 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-2369/2022] 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 /11 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 15/03/2022 at 03:21:21 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:03:30 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 →