RAJENDRA PRASAD JANGIR S/O BHAGWATI PRASAD JANGID vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/4649/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02022998202224 March 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,ANOOP KUMAR DHAND2 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 had submitted that the issue involved was no longer res integra, as it had been decided by a Division Bench of the same Court on January 27, 2022, in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions). 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. Following this precedent, the High Court held that the impugned notice issued in the present case was also invalid and impermissible in law for the reasons stated in the earlier judgment. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajendra Prasad Jangir, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Sikar, and the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The petitioner contended that the issue was no longer res integra, citing a previous decision by a Division Bench of the same court. This prior decision, rendered on January 27, 2022, in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr., had found notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to be invalid and impermissible in law and had quashed them.

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? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the issue involved in the present petition was no longer res integra. They relied on the decision rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court 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 of petitions), where notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were held to be invalid and impermissible in law and were consequently quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue's counsel on the merits of the case.

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. 4649/2022 Rajendra Prasad Jangir S/o Bhagwati Prasad Jangid, having his address at Ward No. 1, Village Post Balara Tehsil Laxmangarh, Sikar in the State of Rajasthan 332401 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Sikar having its address at Todi Nagar, Sanwali Road, Sikar, 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 : Mr. Siddharth Ranka 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 05:21:54 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:37 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-4649/2022] 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 /29 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 28/03/2022 at 05:21:54 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:37 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 →