ASHOKA INDUSTRIES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/4408/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02021692202222 March 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. It held that the issue involved in the present writ petition was no longer res integra, as it had 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. Applying the ratio decidendi of the Sudesh Taneja case, the High Court found the impugned notice issued to Ashoka Industries to be similarly invalid. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ashoka Industries, through its partner Shri Sujeet Chhajer, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, 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-7, Jaipur. The petitioner contended that the issue was no longer res integra, citing a recent Division Bench decision of the same High Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. dated January 27, 2022. This prior decision 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, to the petitioner is invalid and impermissible in law? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the issue concerning the validity of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been conclusively decided by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan 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) on January 27, 2022. They submitted that based on this precedent, the impugned notice in the present case should also be quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue's side regarding 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.4408/2022 Ashoka Industries, Having Its Address At F-143, Road No. 7, Bindayaka BO, Jaipur 302041 In The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Partner Shri Sujeet Chhajer. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-7, Jaipur Having Its Address At Sidhnath Bhawan, Jaipur, Jyoti Nagar, Scheme, Behind New Vidhansabha, Janpath, Jaipur 302015. 2. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Ministry Of Finance, Having Its Address At North Block, New Delhi-110011 Through Its Chairman. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Apeksha Bapna, Advocate for Mr. Siddharth Ranka, 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. (Uploaded on 28/03/2022 at 12:54:32 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:03:04 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-4408/2022] 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 Karan/20 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 28/03/2022 at 12:54:32 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:03:04 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 →