MUSTAFA KATHAWALA S/O BURHANUDDIN KATHAWALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/5347/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02026473202206 April 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN2 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's decision was based on the submission made by the petitioner's counsel that no assessment order had been passed by the Assessing Authority and that the issue was no longer res integra. The Court found that the notice was invalid and impermissible in law, following its own prior decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. The ratio decidendi is that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are invalid and liable to be quashed if they suffer from the same defects as those identified in the Sudesh Taneja case. The petition was allowed, and the notice was quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mustafa Kathawala, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. The respondent was the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota. The petitioner stated that no assessment order had been passed by the Assessing Authority to date. The core of the petition concerned a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that this notice was invalid and impermissible in law, 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 Contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid and impermissible in law. They 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 Contentions: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondent 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.5347/2022 Mustafa Kathawala S/o Burhanuddin Kathawala, Shakti Steel Near Relaince Petrol Pump Jhalawar Road, Kota 324005, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota Having Its Address At Office Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-2, Kota, Central Revenue Building Rawat Bhata Road, Kota Rajasthan Through Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Advocate Mr. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Parinitoo Jain, Advocate HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 06/04/2022 Mrs. Parinitoo Jain, learned counsel enters appearance on behalf of the respondent. Advance copy of the petition has been supplied to learned counsel for the respondent. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner upon instructions would submit that till date no 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 (Uploaded on 07/04/2022 at 06:12:32 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:14 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-5347/2022] 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 Karan/95 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 07/04/2022 at 06:12:32 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:14 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 →