MOHAMMAD RAHIS ANSARI (A.Y. 2013-14) S/O SHRI MOHAMMAD IDRISH ANSARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/5114/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02025107202204 April 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,BIRENDRA KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's decision was based on the submission made by the petitioner's counsel that the issue was no longer res integra. The Court referred to its own Division Bench decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr., dated 27.01.2022, wherein notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were consequently quashed. Applying the ratio of the Sudesh Taneja case, the Court held that the impugned notice in the present case was also invalid and set it aside. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mohammad Rahis Ansari, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, challenging proceedings initiated for Assessment Year 2013-14. The petitioner contended that a final assessment order had not yet been passed. The core of the petition revolved around the validity of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that these notices were invalid and impermissible in law, citing a recent Division Bench decision of the same court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are invalid and impermissible in law, warranting their quashing. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were invalid and impermissible in law. The petitioner relied on the Division Bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch), dated 27.01.2022, which had quashed similar notices. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in opposition to the petitioner's submissions.

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. 5114/2022 Mohammad Rahis Ansari (A.Y. 2013-14) S/o Shri Mohammad Idrish Ansari, Aged About 43 Years, R/o R-15, Yudhishter Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur - 302001. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), 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 05:26:15 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:44:53 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-5114/2022] 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 /19 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 05/04/2022 at 05:26:15 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:44:53 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 →