RAKESH KUMAR SINGRODIA S/O RAM VILAS SINGRODIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/4440/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02021924202222 March 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, held that the issue involved in the petition was no longer res integra. It was guided by the decision of the Division Bench of the same Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr., where 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 same reasoning and precedent, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued in the present case. The petition was allowed on the basis of the prior judgment. No other issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar Singrodia, challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notice was issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Jhunjhunu. The petitioner argued that the issue was already decided by a Division Bench of the same High Court in a previous case, Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. In that case, notices issued under Section 148 were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. The present petition was filed before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur.

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 the Division Bench of this Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions). Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue is no longer res integra and has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforementioned case, where notices under Section 148 were quashed. Therefore, the impugned notice in the present case should also be quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. However, by implication, the revenue would have likely defended the validity of the notice.

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.4440/2022 Rakesh Kumar Singrodia S/o Ram Vilas Singrodia, Having His Address At M/s Bharat Dall Mills, Mukundgarh, Mukundgarh Mandi, Jhunjhunu In The State Of Rajasthan 333705 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Jhunjhunu Having Its Address At Behind Collectorate, Mandawa Road, Jhunjhunu, In The State Of Rajasthan. 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 01:02:25 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:58 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-4440/2022] 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/30 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 28/03/2022 at 01:02:25 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:58 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 →