HARI PRASAD VIJAY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/5624/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02028080202225 April 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. It held that the impugned notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid and impermissible in law. This decision was based on the reasoning provided in a prior judgment by a Division Bench of the same court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch). The court found that the reasons stated in the Sudesh Taneja judgment were applicable to the present case. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed and set aside. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Hari Prasad Vijay, is challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner's counsel stated that no final assessment order has been passed by the Assessing Authority to date. The petition was filed before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, against the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the Union of India. The core of the dispute revolves around the validity of the notice issued under Section 148.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid and impermissible in law? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue is no longer res integra, as a Division Bench of the same court, in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch), had previously held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were invalid and impermissible in law and subsequently quashed them. The petitioner relied on this precedent. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue's counsel on the merits of the case. However, the revenue's counsel entered an 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. 5624/2022 Hari Prasad Vijay, (A.y. 2017-18) S/o Late Shri Ramji Lal Vijay, Aged About 57 Years, R/o B-267, Janta Colony, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302004. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 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(s) : Mr. Vedant Agarwal Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi Advocate. HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 25/04/2022 Mr. Anuroop Singh, 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, on instructions, would submit that till date, final assessment order has not 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 09/05/2022 at 11:43:29 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:44:45 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-5624/2022] 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 Sanjay Kumawat-9 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 09/05/2022 at 11:43:29 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:44:45 AM)

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →