IBRAHIM A KATTHAWALA S/O ABBAS HUSSAIN KATTHAWALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (DCIT)

PDF · subscribers
CW/5348/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02026484202206 April 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue involved in the petition was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the same court in 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 quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued in the present case for the same reasons stated in the earlier order. The petition was allowed. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ibrahim A Katthawala, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. The respondent was the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Circle-2, Kota. The petitioner challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's counsel stated that no assessment order had been passed by the Assessing Authority to date. The petitioner argued that the issue was settled by a previous Division Bench decision 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, considering the pronouncement in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the issue concerning the validity of notices under Section 148 has been decided by a Division Bench of the High Court in Sudesh Taneja (supra), where such notices were found to be invalid and quashed. Therefore, the impugned notice in the present case should also be quashed on the same grounds. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue's counsel regarding the validity of the notice or any counter-arguments to the petitioner's reliance on the Sudesh Taneja decision.

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.5348/2022 Ibrahim A Katthawala S/o Abbas Hussain Katthawala, Katthawala Building, Bhimganj Mandi, Kota Junction, Kota 324002, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (DCIT), 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, (Uploaded on 07/04/2022 at 06:13:09 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:44:49 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-5348/2022] 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 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/96 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 07/04/2022 at 06:13:09 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:44:49 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 →