RAM KALYAN TAILOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/5117/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02025042202204 April 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,BIRENDRA KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court relied on its previous decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr., where similar notices were held to be invalid and impermissible in law. The reasoning was that the issue was no longer res integra, meaning it had already been authoritatively decided by a higher bench of the same court. The ratio decidendi is that if a notice under Section 148 has been found to be invalid in a prior binding precedent of the same court, then subsequent similar notices should also be quashed on the same grounds. The petition was allowed, and the impugned notice was set aside. No other issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ram Kalyan Tailor, is challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2013-14. The petitioner contends that the final assessment order has not yet been passed. The petitioner's counsel argued that the issue is no longer res integra, citing a previous decision by a Division Bench of the same High Court 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 impermissible in law and were quashed. The respondents, Income Tax Officer and Union of India, were represented by their counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid and impermissible in law, turning on the interpretation of Section 148. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue regarding 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., where such notices were found to be invalid and quashed. Therefore, the impugned notice in the present case should also be quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue's counsel on the merits of the case, other than entering appearance.

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. 5117/2022 Ram Kalyan Tailor, (A.Y. 2013-14) S/o Late Shri Lal Chand Tailor, Aged About 55 Years, R/o 117/314, Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302020. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(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 05:27:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:23 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-5117/2022] 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 /22 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 05/04/2022 at 05:27:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:23 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 →