AMRAW DEVI LODHA D/O SHRI CHANDAN MAL CHINDALIA vs. INCOME TAX WARD-1(3)

PDF · subscribers
CW/4286/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02020269202222 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 that the petitioner's counsel had 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. (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 held that the impugned notice issued to the petitioner in the present case was also invalid and impermissible in law. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a prior Division Bench decision has declared notices under Section 148 invalid, subsequent similar notices should also be quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Amraw Devi Lodha, 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 was the Income Tax Ward-1(3), Jaipur. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the issue was no longer res integra, as a Division Bench of the same court had previously ruled on a similar matter. This prior decision, rendered on January 27, 2022, in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (and batch of petitions), had found notices issued under Section 148 to be invalid and impermissible in law and had quashed them. 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, to the petitioner is invalid and impermissible in law? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issue was settled by a prior Division Bench decision 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), which held notices issued under Section 148 to be invalid and quashed them. Therefore, the present notice should also be quashed on the same grounds. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific contention 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.4286/2022 Amraw Devi Lodha D/o Shri Chandan Mal Chindalia, Aged About 55 Years, Presently R/o 56, Laxman Path, Nemi Nagar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur-302021 (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Ward-1(3), Jaipur, NCR Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Vijay, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Bhatti, Advocate for Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Advocate HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 22/03/2022 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 (Uploaded on 28/03/2022 at 12:26:00 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:39 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-4286/2022] aforesaid cases, is also quashed and set aside and the petition is allowed. (SAMEER JAIN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ Karan/11 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 28/03/2022 at 12:26:00 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:39 AM)

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →