AGARWAL FINANCIAL SERVICES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/4375/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02021611202222 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 petition 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 quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued to the petitioner. The petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a notice under Section 148 has been issued in contravention of established legal principles as laid down by a Division Bench of the High Court, such a notice is liable to be quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Agarwal Financial Services, through its partner Vijay Kumar Agarwal, 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, by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jaipur. The petitioner contended that the issue was already decided by a Division Bench of the same High Court in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. on January 27, 2022, where similar notices were found to be invalid and quashed. The respondent was the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.

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, considering the precedent set by the Division Bench of this Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch). Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the issue is no longer res integra and has been conclusively decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the Sudesh Taneja case, which held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were invalid and quashed them. Therefore, the impugned notice in the present case should also be quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the learned counsel for the respondent.

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.4375/2022 Agarwal Financial Services, Having Its Registered Office At 514- 516, 5Th Floor, Sun N Moon Chambers, Near Ajmer Pulia, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302006 Through Its Partner Vijay Kumar Agarwal ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, 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 12:27:22 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:44 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-4375/2022] aforesaid cases, is also quashed and set aside and the petition is allowed. (SAMEER JAIN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ Karan/13 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 28/03/2022 at 12:27:22 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:44 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 →