ASHUTOSH BAGARIA S/O ANAND KUMAR BAGARIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE

PDF · subscribers
CW/4394/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02021852202222 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, 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 earlier 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 to the petitioner in the present case for the same reasons. The petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar issue regarding the validity of Section 148 notices has been decided by a coordinate bench, subsequent petitions raising the same issue should follow that precedent. The operative direction was to quash and set aside the notice and allow the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ashutosh Bagaria, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent was the Income Tax Office, Ward 1, Jhunjhunu. The petitioner's counsel stated that the issue was no longer res integra, referring to a previous decision by a Division Bench of the same High 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 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, is invalid and impermissible in law? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the issue concerning the validity of notices under Section 148 has been conclusively decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch), where such notices were quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue in opposition to the petitioner's claim. The revenue was represented by counsel, but their submissions are not detailed in the provided text.

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.4394/2022 Ashutosh Bagaria S/o Anand Kumar Bagaria, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Bajarang Lal Bagaria, Bhola Ram Bagla Marg, Near Subhash Chowk, Churu- 331001 (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Office, Ward 1, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, Behind Collectorate, Mandawa Road, Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, 333001. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devang Gargieya, Advocate & Mr. Arunabh Dey, Advocate for Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, 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 12:51:11 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:51 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-4394/2022] aforesaid cases, is also quashed and set aside and the petition is allowed. (SAMEER JAIN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ Karan/16 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 28/03/2022 at 12:51:11 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:51 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 →