NAMITA JAIN D/O SHRI GYAN CHAND JAIN vs. ITO WD 1(3)

PDF · subscribers
CW/4389/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02021609202222 March 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue involved in the present petition was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. on January 27, 2022. The Division Bench in that case had found notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to be invalid and impermissible in law and had quashed them. Following this precedent, the Tribunal quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued to the petitioner in the present case. The petition was allowed based on the reasoning provided in the Sudesh Taneja judgment. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned. The ratio decidendi is that if a notice under Section 148 has been held to be invalid by a higher court, similar notices should be quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Namita Jain, challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent was the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Jaipur. The petitioner argued that the issue was already decided by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in a previous case, Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. This prior judgment, rendered on January 27, 2022, had declared notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to be invalid and impermissible in law and consequently quashed them. The present petition was filed seeking a similar outcome based on this precedent.

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, in light of the Division Bench judgment 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 petitioner contended that the issue was no longer res integra, as it had been conclusively decided by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. on January 27, 2022. The petitioner relied on this judgment to argue that the notice issued to them under Section 148 should be quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue in response to the petitioner's submissions.

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.4389/2022 Namita Jain D/o Shri Gyan Chand Jain, Aged About 49 Years, R/o 561, Vivek Vihar, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur- 302019 (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus ITO WD 1(3), JPR, 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 aforesaid cases, is also quashed and set aside and the petition is allowed. (SAMEER JAIN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ Karan/15 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 28/03/2022 at 12:49:34 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:56 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 →