PRAVEEN KUMAR GOEL (HUF) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/4160/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02020522202228 March 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel submitted that the issue was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the same court on January 27, 2022, in 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 High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued in the present case for the same reasons. The petition was allowed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Praveen Kumar Goel (HUF), through its Karta Sh. Praveen Kumar Goel, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. The petition challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Sikar. The respondent was the Income Tax Officer. The petitioner argued that the issue was settled by a previous Division Bench decision of the same court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid and impermissible in law, turning on the interpretation of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Contentions: Assessee: The petitioner contended that the issue involved in the present petition was no longer res integra, as it had been conclusively decided by a Division Bench of the 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: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by 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. 4160/2022 Praveen Kumar Goel (HUF), Having its office at 2/206, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur-302023, Rajasthan, India through its Karta Sh. Praveen Kumar Goel. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Sikar, Todi Nagar, Sanwali Road, Sikar- 332001, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Javed Khan 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 28/03/2022 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 MANOJ NARWANI /133 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 29/03/2022 at 01:51:21 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:35 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 →