ANITA BHANSALI DAUGHTER OF SHRI BHARU SINGH CHAUDHARY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/5136/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02025162202204 April 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted the submission of the petitioner's counsel that the issue was no longer res integra, having been 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 decision, 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 held that the impugned notice issued in the present case was also invalid and impermissible in law. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anita Bhansali, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur, and the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The petitioner's counsel stated that no final assessment order had yet been passed. The core of the petitioner's argument was that the notices issued under Section 148 were invalid, citing a previous decision by a Division Bench of the same court.

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 and application of Section 148 and related provisions concerning reassessment proceedings. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid and impermissible in law. This contention was based on a prior decision of the Division Bench 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), where similar notices were quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument 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.5136/2022 Anita Bhansali Daughter Of Shri Bharu Singh Chaudhary, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of J-10/230, Fatehtiba, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur 302004 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das 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 05:36:48 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:44:57 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-5136/2022] 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/6 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 07/04/2022 at 05:36:48 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:44:57 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 →