KANHA ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/4369/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02021236202229 March 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN2 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. The Court referred to its own prior 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). 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 stated in the earlier judgment. The petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar notice under Section 148 has been quashed by a Division Bench of the High Court on grounds of invalidity and impermissibility in law, subsequent identical notices should also be quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kanha Electronics Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench. The petition challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), 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 court. This prior 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), had found notices issued under Section 148 to be invalid and impermissible in law and had quashed them.

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 and application of Section 148 and related provisions concerning reassessment proceedings. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue involved in the present petition was no longer res integra. They relied on the Division Bench decision of the same court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch), wherein notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were held to be invalid and impermissible in law and were consequently quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue on this issue.

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. 4369/2022 Kanha Electronics Private Limited, having address at G-9, Bharat Apartment, New Colony, Panch Batti, Jaipur 302003 Rajasthan India through its authorized representative Vinod Kumar Nebhnani S/o Ramchandra Nebhnani aged about 56 years Resident of 10 New Joshi Coliny, Brahampuri Road, Jaipur Rajasthan, India 302012 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Jaipur, having office at New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur 302005, Rajasthan. 2. Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 110011, through its Chairman. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Prateek Kedawat 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 29/03/2022 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 30/03/2022 at 03:45:19 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:05 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-4369/2022] 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 /8 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 30/03/2022 at 03:45:19 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:05 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 →