CHHITARMAL BHURAMAL TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/3684/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02017925202210 March 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue involved in the petition was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the 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) on 27.01.2022. 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 consequently quashed. Applying the ratio of the Sudesh Taneja judgment to the present case, the Court found the impugned notice to be invalid. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the present case was quashed and set aside. The petition was allowed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Chhitarmal Bhuramal Traders Private Limited, 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, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Jaipur. The petitioner's counsel stated that the issue was no longer res integra, referencing a prior Division Bench decision dated 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 similar notices were held invalid and quashed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid and impermissible in law? (Question of law) The petitioner contended that the issue concerning the validity of notices under Section 148 has been conclusively decided by a Division Bench of the same 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), wherein such notices were quashed. The petitioner argued that based on this precedent, the notice in the present case should also be quashed. The respondent (Income Tax Officer) did not record any specific arguments 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.3684/2022 Chhitarmal Bhuramal Traders Private Limited, B-11, Anaj Mandi, Chandpole, Jaipur-302003, Rajasthan, India Through Its Director Sh. Jambu Kumar Jain. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhi Goyal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 10/03/2022 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 Karan/17 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 15/03/2022 at 10:42:18 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:03:13 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 →