MAHESH KUMAR KHATORIA SON OF GD KHATORIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/2948/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02014338202229 March 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel had 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 Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions). 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 quashed and set aside. The petition was allowed on the basis of the reasoning provided in the Sudesh Taneja case. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mahesh Kumar Khatoria, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer and the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the issue was no longer debatable, citing a previous decision by a Division Bench of the same court dated January 27, 2022, in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. In that case, notices issued under Section 148 were held to be invalid and were quashed. The present petition was filed seeking similar relief.

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 argued that the issue concerning the validity of notices under Section 148 has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in 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. The petitioner relied on this precedent, asserting that the notices in such cases were found to be invalid and quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue's counsel on the merits of the case. However, the court proceeded to decide based on the petitioner's submission and the cited precedent.

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. 2948/2022 Mahesh Kumar Khatoria Son of GD Khatoria, aged about 43 years, Resident of SB-39 Khatoria Bhawan, Ganesh Marg Rambag, Jaipur 302015, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle (4), Room No. 416, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, LIC Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110011 through its Chairman ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Prateek Kedawat Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. N.S. Bhati Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anuroop Singhi 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. (Uploaded on 30/03/2022 at 03:39:27 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:27 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-2948/2022] 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. (SAMEER JAIN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ MANOJ NARWANI /17 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 30/03/2022 at 03:39:27 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:27 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 →