RADHA MOHAN VIJAY (A.Y. 2013-14) S/O SHRI JAGANNATH PRASAD VIJAY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/5112/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02025053202204 April 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,BIRENDRA KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. It held that the issue concerning the validity of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 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. on January 27, 2022. In that decision, notices issued under Section 148 were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Following this precedent, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued to the petitioner in the present case for the assessment year 2013-14. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Radha Mohan Vijay, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2013-14. The petitioner contended that the final assessment order had not yet been passed. The petitioner's counsel argued that the issue concerning the validity of notices under Section 148 had been decided by a Division Bench of the same High Court in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. on January 27, 2022, where such notices were found to be invalid and quashed. The respondents were represented by their counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2013-14, is invalid and impermissible in law? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue is no longer res integra, as a Division Bench of the High Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch) had already held notices issued under Section 148 to be invalid and quashed them. Therefore, the impugned notice in the present case should also be quashed on the same grounds. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue on this issue.

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. 5112/2022 Radha Mohan Vijay (A.Y. 2013-14) S/o Shri Jagannath Prasad Vijay, Aged About 54 Years, R/o B-268, Janta Colony, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302004. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302005. 2. Union of India, though its Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi (NCT)-110001. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vedant Agrawal Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Nikhil Simlote Advocate. HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 04/04/2022 Mr. Nikhil Simlote, learned counsel enters appearance on behalf of the respondents. Advance copy of the petition has been supplied to learned counsel for the respondents. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that till date, final assessment order has not been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 (Uploaded on 05/04/2022 at 05:25:50 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:21 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-5112/2022] 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 /18 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 05/04/2022 at 05:25:50 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:21 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 →