SANJAY PANDE S/O LATE HARISH CHANDRA PANDE vs. ITO WD 6 (3), JPR

PDF · subscribers
CW/4696/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02023014202228 March 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel submitted that the issue involved was no longer res integra, as it had been conclusively decided by a Division Bench of the same court 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) on 27.01.2022. In that judgment, 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. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a legal issue concerning the validity of Section 148 notices has been decided by a Division Bench, subsequent similar notices should be quashed based on that precedent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sanjay Pande, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent was the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(3), Jaipur. The petitioner argued that the issue was already decided by a Division Bench of the same court in a previous case, Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. This prior judgment had declared notices issued under Section 148 to be invalid and impermissible in law. The court was asked to quash the notice issued to the petitioner based on this precedent.

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, considering the Division Bench's decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr.? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the present case is no longer res integra, meaning it has been settled by a prior binding decision. They relied on the Division Bench judgment dated 27.01.2022 in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (and batch of petitions), which had found notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to be invalid and impermissible in law and consequently quashed them. The petitioner sought the same relief for their case. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue.

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. 4696/2022 Sanjay Pande S/o Late Harish Chandra Pande, Aged About 57 Years, R/o A-14, Mahaveer Udhyan Path, Bajaj Nagar, 302017 (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus Ito WD 6 (3), JPR, Jaipur, NCR Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Vijay 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 28/03/2022 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. 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 /15 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 29/03/2022 at 01:55:32 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:11 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 →