BANO BEGUM W/O HAZI PHOOL MOHAMMAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/3446/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02016587202203 March 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,ANOOP KUMAR DHAND1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue involved in the present petition was no longer res integra, having 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). 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 impugned notice issued in the present case was also quashed and set aside. The petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a precedent exists for the invalidity of Section 148 notices under similar circumstances, subsequent identical notices should also be quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bano Begum, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent was the Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur. The petitioner argued that the issue was settled by a previous Division Bench decision of the same court. The court was to decide on the validity of the notice issued to the petitioner.

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? (Question of law) Contentions: Assessee: The petitioner contended that the issue involved in the present petition is no longer res integra, as it has been decided by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High 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), where notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and quashed. Revenue: No specific contentions were recorded for the revenue in the judgment.

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. 3446/2022 Bano Begum W/o Hazi Phool Mohammad, Plot No. 211/4, H.A.R. Colony, Char Darwaja Bahar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur, Rajasthan through Income Tax Officer, Having its address at office of the Income Tax Officer Ward 5(2), Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta 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. 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 /13 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 11/03/2022 at 05:42:45 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:03:32 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 →