SUMAN CHOUDHARY D/O LUMBA RAM SAHARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/4417/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02021481202222 March 2022Bench: AKIL KURESHI,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, as it had been decided by a Division Bench of the same court in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. on 27.01.2022. In that precedent-setting decision, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were consequently quashed. Applying the ratio decidendi of the Sudesh Taneja case, the High Court found the impugned notice in the present case to be similarly invalid. Therefore, the impugned notice was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Suman Choudhary, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. The petition challenged a notice issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Jaipur. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the issue was no longer res integra, citing a previous decision by a Division Bench of the same court dated 27.01.2022 in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch). In that case, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Based on this precedent, the petitioner sought 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 petitioner argued that the issue was settled by a prior Division Bench judgment of the High Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch), which held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Therefore, the present notice should also be quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondent revenue.

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.4417/2022 Suman Choudhary D/o Lumba Ram Saharan, 92, Jambeshwar Nagar, Queens Road, Jaipur 302001, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Jaipur Having Its Address At Office Of The Income Tax Officer Jaipur Rajasthan Through Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate Mr. Ashok Gupta, 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 12:57:53 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:03:02 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-4417/2022] aforesaid cases, is also quashed and set aside and the petition is allowed. (SAMEER JAIN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ Karan/24 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 28/03/2022 at 12:57:53 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:03:02 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 →