BRIJMOHAN JAIN S/O SHREE CHAND JAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/3925/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02018886202210 March 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. The Court noted the submission of the petitioner's counsel that the issue was no longer res integra due to the Division Bench's decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch), where notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were quashed. Applying the ratio decidendi of the Sudesh Taneja case, the 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 writ petition was allowed. No other issues were decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Brijmohan Jain, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, challenging a notice issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Bharatpur. The petitioner's counsel stated that the issue was no longer res integra, citing a previous Division Bench decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch). In that earlier case, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. The present petition was filed against the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Bharatpur, and the Central Board of Direct Taxes.

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 is no longer res integra, as a Division Bench of the same court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch) has already held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are invalid and impermissible in law and have been quashed. Therefore, by parity of reasoning, the impugned notice in the present case should also be quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Revenue).

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.3925/2022 Brijmohan Jain S/o Shree Chand Jain, Having His Address At C/o Govind Medicose Jurehra, Tehsil Kaman District Bharatpur In The State Of Rajasthan 321023 Currently Residing At 2374, Sector 2, Ballabh Garh, Faridabad In The State Of Haryana 121004 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Bharatpur Having Its Address At Govardhan Gate Near Head Post Office, Bharatpur In The State Of Rajasthan 321001 2. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Ministry Of Finance, Having Its Address At North Block, New Delhi 110011 Through Its Chairman. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurav Harsh, Advocate for Mr. Siddharth Ranka, 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 (Uploaded on 15/03/2022 at 10:46:31 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:55 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-3925/2022] 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/25 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 15/03/2022 at 10:46:31 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:55 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 →