MANJARI MITTAL, D/O SHRI DEEPAK GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/4368/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02021676202223 March 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which relied on the Division Bench's decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr., the impugned notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was also invalid and impermissible in law. The Court found the reasons stated in the earlier order to be applicable to the present case. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a prior Division Bench decision has declared notices under Section 148 to be invalid, subsequent similar notices should also be quashed on the same grounds. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manjari Mittal, 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 2(2), Kota. The petitioner argued that the issue was no longer res integra, citing a previous decision by a Division Bench of the same court. This prior decision, rendered on January 27, 2022, in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr., had found notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to be invalid and impermissible in law and had quashed them. The revenue was represented by Mr. Nikhil Simlote.

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 learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present petition is no longer res integra, as it has been conclusively decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision rendered 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 case, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue's counsel on this issue, other than their appearance.

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. 4368/2022 Manjari Mittal, D/o Shri Deepak Gupta, Aged About 40 Years, R/o 893, Shastri Nagar, Kota. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Kota CR Building, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota. 2. Union of India, through Finance Secretary, Ministry Of Finance (Department Of Revenue), Central Board Of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi 110002 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra for Mr. Gunjan Pathak For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nikhil Simlote HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 23/03/2022 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 31/03/2022 at 01:47:19 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:30 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-4368/2022] 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 JKP/68 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 31/03/2022 at 01:47:19 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:30 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 →