SAMANT BHADRA REAL ESTATES vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/5134/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02025170202204 April 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. The Court noted the submission of the petitioner's counsel that no final order of assessment had been passed. Crucially, the Court acknowledged that the issue was covered by its own Division Bench's decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch), where 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 quashed and set aside the impugned notice in the present case. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Samant Bhadra Real Estates, through its partner Smt. Kusum Gangwal, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. The petition challenged notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Jaipur. The petitioner's counsel stated that no final order of assessment had yet been passed. The core of the petitioner's argument was that similar notices had been previously quashed 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.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are invalid and impermissible in law, considering the High Court's prior decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue was no longer res integra, as the Division Bench of the High Court in the aforementioned Sudesh Taneja case had already held such notices to be invalid and impermissible in law and had quashed them. Therefore, the impugned notice in the present case should also be quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions from 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.5134/2022 Samant Bhadra Real Estates, Having Its Address At F-62, First Floor, Sunder Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302001 In The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Partner Smt. Kusum Gangwal. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Jaipur Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur 302005 2. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Ministry Of Finance, Having Its Address At North Block, New Delhi-110011 Through Its Chairman. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Muzaffar Iqbal, Advocate for Mr. Siddharth Ranka, Advocate HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 04/04/2022 At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that so far no final order of assessment has been passed by the Assessing Authority. 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 of petitions) where the notices issued under Section 148 of the (Uploaded on 07/04/2022 at 05:36:00 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:16 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-5134/2022] 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 Karan/5 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 07/04/2022 at 05:36:00 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:17 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 →