PRAKASH CHAND SAINI S/O LATE SHRI RAMLAL SAINI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/4222/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02020837202228 March 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted the submission made by the petitioner's counsel that the issue involved was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the same court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. on January 27, 2022. In that precedent, 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 binding precedent, the High Court held that the impugned notice issued in the present case was also invalid and impermissible. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a precedent exists where similar notices under Section 148 have been quashed for being invalid, then subsequent similar notices should also be quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Prakash Chand Saini, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(3), Jaipur, and the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the issue was no longer res integra, citing a previous decision by a Division Bench of the same High Court on January 27, 2022, in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. In that case, notices issued under Section 148 were found to be invalid and quashed. The present petition was filed seeking similar relief.

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 petitioner argued that the issue concerning the validity of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 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 such notices were quashed. Therefore, the notice in the present case should also be quashed on the same grounds. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in opposition to the petitioner's submission or the precedent cited.

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. 4222/2022 Prakash Chand Saini S/o Late Shri Ramlal Saini, Aged about 53 years, R/o C-4, Barkat Nagar Vistar, Arjun Nagar Phatak Ke Pass, Tonk Phatak, Lal Kothi, Jaipur 302015 (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(3), Jaipur Having Address At New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005. 2. Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 110011 through its Chairman. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Atul Bhardwaj Advocate on behalf of Mr. Arvind Sharma 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. (Uploaded on 29/03/2022 at 01:52:25 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:33 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-4222/2022] 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 /10 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 29/03/2022 at 01:52:25 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:33 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 →