OM PRAKASH AGARWAL S/O BABULAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/3996/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02020017202211 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 present petition was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the same court on January 27, 2022, in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch). 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 quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued to the petitioner. The petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a notice under Section 148 has been held to be invalid and impermissible by a higher bench of the same court, subsequent similar notices should also be quashed. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Om Prakash Agarwal, 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 is the Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1), Jaipur. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the issue was no longer res integra, citing a previous Division Bench decision of the same court dated January 27, 2022, in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch). 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.

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) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issue has been decided by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch), where notices under Section 148 were quashed. Therefore, the present notice should also be quashed on the same grounds. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the 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.3996/2022 Om Prakash Agarwal S/o Babulal, 5, Tanaji Marg, Brahmpuri, Jaipur 302023, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1), Jaipur Having Its Address At Office Of The Income Tax Officer Ward 5(1), Jaipur Rajasthan Through Income Tax Officer. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 11/03/2022 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/5 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 16/03/2022 at 02:17:45 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:54 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 →