ABHAY CHORDIA S/O SHRI ASHOK KUMAR JAIN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/4577/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02022362202224 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 petitioner's counsel submitted that the issue was no longer res integra, as a Division Bench of the same court had already decided the matter 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. Following this binding precedent, the Court held that the impugned notice issued in the present case was also invalid and impermissible. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that notices issued under Section 148, when identical to those previously quashed by a Division Bench of the same High Court, are to be similarly treated and quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Abhay Chordia, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents were the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the Union of India. The petitioner argued that the notice was invalid. The Court was informed that a Division Bench of the same High Court had previously ruled on a similar issue in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. on January 27, 2022, where notices under Section 148 were found to be invalid and were quashed. The present petition was filed in 2022.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid and impermissible in law, as contended by the petitioner. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. This contention was based on the submission that the issue was no longer res integra, having 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 of petitions) on January 27, 2022, where such notices were found to be invalid and quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in opposition to the petitioner's submission regarding the invalidity of the notice. The revenue was represented by counsel, but their arguments are not detailed in the provided text.

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. 4577/2022 Abhay Chordia S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, aged about 40 years, R/o 4459, KGB Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur, NCR Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur. 2. Union of India, through Finance Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi 110002. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Archit Bohra Advocate on behalf of Mr. Gunjan Pathak Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. N.S. Bhati Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anuroop Singhi Advocate. HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 24/03/2022 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 05:20:47 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:24 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-4577/2022] 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 MANOJ NARWANI /27 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 28/03/2022 at 05:20:47 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:24 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 →