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

PDF · subscribers
CW/2950/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02014335202229 March 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue involved in the writ petition was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the High Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, dated 27.01.2022. 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 quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued to the petitioner in the present case. The petition was allowed based on the reasoning provided in the Sudesh Taneja judgment. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned, nor were any other issues expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mahesh Kumar Khatoria, filed a writ petition 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 res integra, citing a previous Division Bench decision of the same High Court. This 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. The petitioner argued that the present case was identical to the facts in the Sudesh Taneja case.

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, in light of the Division Bench judgment in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the issue involved in the present petition was no longer res integra, as it had been decided by a Division Bench of the High Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch). The petitioner argued that the notices issued under Section 148 in that case were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Therefore, the impugned notice in the present case should also be quashed on the same grounds. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue's side. However, the court's decision implies that the revenue did not effectively counter the petitioner's reliance on the 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. 2950/2022 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 03:40:03 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:31 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-2950/2022] 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 /18 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 30/03/2022 at 03:40:03 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:31 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 →