JAGDISH PRASAD S/O SHRI SURAJ BHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/4428/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02021941202222 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 learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved was no longer res integra, as it had been decided by a Division Bench of the Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch). In that decision, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. In view of this submission and the prior ruling, the High Court held that the impugned notice issued in the present case was also invalid and impermissible for the same reasons. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a High Court Division Bench has already ruled on the invalidity of Section 148 notices based on specific grounds, subsequent identical notices should also be quashed following that precedent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jagdish Prasad, challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward Behror. The respondent authorities were the Income Tax Officer and the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The petitioner argued that the issue was no longer res integra, citing 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. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch), had found notices issued under Section 148 to be invalid and impermissible in law and had quashed them. The petitioner contended that the present case was identical to the facts in the Sudesh Taneja case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid and impermissible in law, considering the precedent set by this Court 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 argued that the issue was no longer res integra and had been conclusively decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the Sudesh Taneja case, where notices under Section 148 were quashed. Therefore, the notice in the present case should also be quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue's side regarding the validity of the notice or any counter-arguments to the petitioner's reliance on the Sudesh Taneja judgment.

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.4428/2022 Jagdish Prasad S/o Shri Suraj Bhan, Having His Address At Madhosinghpura, Pratapsinghpura, Neemrana, Alwar, Rajasthan- 301705. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward Behror, Having Its Address At Income Tax Building, Riico Colony, Riico Industrial Area, Behror, Rajasthan-301701. 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 12:58:38 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:47 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-4428/2022] 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/25 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 28/03/2022 at 12:58:38 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:47 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 →