UPASANA COLONISERS vs. ACIT / DCIT

PDF · subscribers
CW/4803/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02023400202229 March 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue involved in the present petition was no longer res integra, as it had been conclusively 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). In that precedent-setting judgment, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were declared invalid and impermissible in law and were consequently quashed. Applying the ratio decidendi of the Sudesh Taneja case to the present facts, the High Court found the impugned notice issued to Upasana Colonisers to be similarly invalid. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Upasana Colonisers, through its authorized representative, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench. The petition challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents were the ACIT/DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, and the Union of India. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the issue was no longer res integra, referencing a prior decision by a Division Bench of the same 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). In that case, notices issued under Section 148 were found to be invalid and quashed.

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? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issue concerning the validity of notices under Section 148 has been decided by a 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), where such notices were found to be invalid and quashed. Therefore, the present notice should also be quashed on the same grounds. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue's side regarding the validity of the notice. The court proceeded based on the petitioner's submission and the precedent cited.

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. 4803/2022 Upasana Colonisers, C-98, Sanghi Upasana Tower, Subhash Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, through its authorized representative Shri Kishan Gopal Maheshwari, S/o Shri Atal Maheshwari, aged about 27 years, Designation- Accounts Officer, R/o Plot No. 8, Pratap Nagar Colony, Purana Ramgarh Mode, Amer Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. ACIT / DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur NCR Building, Bhagwan Dass 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. 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 29/03/2022 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 30/03/2022 at 03:47:29 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:02 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-4803/2022] 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 /11 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 30/03/2022 at 03:47:29 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:02 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 →