SATISH AJMERA S/O SHRI LATE SHRI BHANWAR LAL AJMERA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/27/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02085519202129 March 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted the submission of the petitioner's counsel that the issue was no longer res integra, referencing the Division Bench's decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer dated January 27, 2022. In that case, 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. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a prior Division Bench decision has settled a legal issue regarding the validity of Section 148 notices, subsequent identical notices should be quashed based on that precedent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Satish Ajmera, 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 respondent was the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7, Jaipur. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the issue was no longer res integra, citing a previous decision by a Division Bench of the same court. This prior decision, rendered on January 27, 2022, in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, had found notices issued under Section 148 to be invalid and impermissible in law and had quashed them.

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? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue is no longer res integra, as a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch) had already held notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to be invalid and impermissible in law and had quashed them. Therefore, the present notice should also be quashed on the same grounds. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue in opposition to the petitioner's submission or the relief sought.

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. 27/2022 Satish Ajmera, Aged about 77 years, S/o Shri Late Shri Bhanwar Lal Ajmera, R/o H-10 Chitaranjan Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur- 302001 ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7, Sidhnath Bhawan, Lalkothi, Jaipur, 302015 ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Kersi J. Mehta Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Nikhil Simlote Advocate. HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 29/03/2022 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. 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. (SAMEER JAIN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ MANOJ NARWANI /86 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 30/03/2022 at 03:38:50 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:06 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 →