MANOJ BINDAL S/O LATE SHRI BISHMBER DAYAL BINDAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/4397/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02021668202222 March 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel submitted that the issue was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the same court 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). 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 held that the impugned notice issued in the present case was also invalid and impermissible. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside, and 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 be decided in line with the precedent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manoj Bindal, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench. The petition challenged notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Kota. The petitioner contended that the issue was settled by a previous Division Bench decision of the same court. The respondents were the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and the Union of India. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are invalid and impermissible in law? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue concerning the validity of Section 148 notices had already been decided by a Division Bench of the High 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 of petitions) on 27.01.2022, where such notices were quashed. Therefore, the present petition should also be allowed on the same grounds. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in response to the petitioner's submission regarding the precedent.

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.4397/2022 Manoj Bindal S/o Late Shri Bishmber Dayal Bindal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o M-72, Ramble Road, Near Mehboob Ki Kothi, Ajmer 305001 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 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) : Ms. Ishita Rawat, Advocate for Mr. Gunjan Pathak, 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 (Uploaded on 28/03/2022 at 12:52:04 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:32 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-4397/2022] 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/17 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 28/03/2022 at 12:52:04 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:32 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 →