CHANDRALATA MEHTA D/O LATE SH. MOHAN LAL MUTHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the writ petition was to be finally disposed of in terms of the order dated 04.05.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others Vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court's directions, as incorporated in the judgment, stipulated that Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Act would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A and treated as show-cause notices. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure. The assessing officer was directed to provide information and material to the assessees, who would then have a period to reply. Subsequently, orders under Section 148A(d) were to be passed, followed by a notice under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and revenue were preserved. The operative direction was for the concerned authorities to proceed in accordance with the Supreme Court's directions.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Chandralata Mehta, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. The respondent was the Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Jaipur. The case involved a challenge to notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the hearing, both parties jointly submitted that the issue was covered by the Supreme Court's order dated 04.05.2022 in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Ashish Agarwal. The High Court noted that the Supreme Court's order provided specific directions for dealing with such notices.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Section 148 notices issued under the unamended provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, prior to the substitution by the Finance Act, 2021, should be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act and treated as show-cause notices. 2. Whether the requirement of conducting an enquiry with prior approval of a specified authority under Section 148A(a) is mandatory or can be dispensed with as a one-time measure. Assessee's contention: The petitioner, through her counsel, agreed that the issue was covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Ashish Agarwal. No specific arguments were recorded for the petitioner beyond this submission. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through its counsel, also agreed that the issue was covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Ashish Agarwal. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue beyond this submission.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5754/2022 Chandralata Mehta D/o Late Sh. Mohan Lal Mutha, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Mehta Bhawan, Opposite Sen. Higher Secondary School, Naraina Road, Dudu- 303008, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward- 7 (1) Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Rod, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302005. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Javed Khan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Malani, Advocate for Mr. Nikhil Simlote, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Judgment / Order 19/07/2022 Mr. Amit Malani, Advocate, on instructions from Mr. Nikhil Simlote, Advocate on advanced copy, appears on behalf of the respondent. When this case came up for hearing today, learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the issue raised in this petition would be covered by order dated 04.05.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Ashish Agarwal (Civil Appeal No. 3005/2022 and batch of appeals). Following directions have been issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case: “10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Appeals are ALLOWED IN PART. The impugned common judgments and (Uploaded on 27/07/2022 at 05:20:10 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:44:31 AM) (2 of 3) [CW-5754/2022] orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in W.T. No. 524/2021 and other allied tax appeals/petitions, is/are hereby modified and substituted as under:- (i) The impugned section 148 notices issued to the respective assessees which were issued under unamended section 148 of the IT Act, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before the various respective High Courts shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be show-cause notices in terms of section 148A(b). The assessing officer shall, within thirty days from today provide to the respective assessees information and material relied upon by the Revenue, so that the assessees can reply to the show-cause notices within two weeks thereafter; (ii) The requirement of conducting any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified authority under section 148A(a) is hereby dispensed with as a one-time measure vis-à-vis those notices which have been issued under section 148 of the unamended Act from 01.04.2021 till date, including those which have been quashed by the High Courts. Even otherwise as observed hereinabove holding any enquiry with the prior approval of specified authority is not mandatory but it is for the concerned Assessing Officer to hold any enquiry, if required; (iii) The assessing officers shall thereafter pass orders in terms of section 148A(d) in respect of each of the concerned assessees; Thereafter after following the procedure as required under section 148A may issue notice under section 148 (as substituted); (iv) All defences which may be available to the assessees including those available under section 149 of the IT Act and all rights and contentions which may be available to the concerned assessees and Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021 and in law shall continue to be available. 11. The present order shall be applicable PAN INDIA and all judgments and orders passed by different High Courts on the issue and under which similar notices which were issued after 01.04.2021 issued under section 148 of the Act are set aside and shall be governed by the present order and (Uploaded on 27/07/2022 at 05:20:10 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:44:31 AM) (3 of 3) [CW-5754/2022] shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The present order is passed in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as to avoid any further appeals by the Revenue on the very issue by challenging similar judgments and orders, with a view not to burden this Court with approximately 9000 appeals. We also observe that present order shall also govern the pending writ petitions, pending before various High Courts in which similar notices under Section 148 of the Act issued after 01.04.2021 are under challenge. 12. The impugned common judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Allahabad and the similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts, more particularly, the respective judgments and orders passed by the various High Courts particulars of which are mentioned hereinabove, shall stand modified/substituted to the aforesaid extent only. All these appeals are accordingly partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.” Accordingly, this writ petition is also finally disposed off in terms of order dated 04.05.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Ashish Agarwal (supra), as stated above. The authorities concerned shall proceed to decide the matter in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 10 of the aforesaid order. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J Mohita /6 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 27/07/2022 at 05:20:10 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:44:31 AM)
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026