BEENA CHOUHAN W/O MR. RATANJIT NATHAWAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/4485/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02022572202222 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. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch). 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 consequently quashed. Applying the ratio decidendi of the Sudesh Taneja case, the High Court found the impugned notice issued to the petitioner to be similarly invalid. Therefore, the 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, Beena Chouhan, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur, and the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the issue was no longer res integra, as a Division Bench of the same High Court had previously ruled on a similar matter. Specifically, in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch), notices issued under Section 148 were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. The present petition was filed seeking similar relief.

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, in light of the Division Bench's decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr.? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner's counsel argued that the issue was settled by the Division Bench of the High Court in Sudesh Taneja's case, where similar notices under Section 148 were quashed. Therefore, the notice in the present case should also be quashed on the same grounds. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue's counsel in opposition to the petitioner's submission.

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.4485/2022 Beena Chouhan W/o Mr. Ratanjit Nathawat, Aged About 48 Years, R/o 77 Mangal Nagar Sirsi Road, Panchayawala, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302012. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur, Income Tax Department, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302005 2. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110011 Through Its Chairman. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yatharth Gupta, Advocate for Ms. Mahi Yadav, 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 01:04:43 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:35 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-4485/2022] 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/33 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 28/03/2022 at 01:04:43 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:35 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 →