RAMESH CHAND MAHESHWARI S/O SHRI LAXMI NARAIN MAHESHWARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/5867/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02029128202205 November 2024Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,UMA SHANKER VYAS2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court found that the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 was non-speaking, as it merely stated that the reply filed by the petitioner was unsatisfactory without providing any specific reasons or analysis. This was considered a violation of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the principles of natural justice, as well as the departmental guidelines. The Court relied on its own decision in R.K. Buildcreations Private Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the respondent to proceed with the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act in accordance with law. The Court did not decide on the merits of the reassessment proceedings themselves, only on the procedural defect in the order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ramesh Chand Maheshwari, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. The petition challenged a notice dated 14.03.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an order dated 31.03.2022 passed under Section 148(d) of the Act. The respondent was the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Jaipur. The petitioner argued that the order dated 31.03.2022 was non-speaking and violated Section 148A of the Act and departmental guidelines. The respondent defended the order but could not distinguish the case from a cited precedent. The impugned order stated the petitioner's reply was unsatisfactory without further elaboration.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order dated 31.03.2022 passed under Section 148(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is a non-speaking order and in violation of Section 148A of the Act and departmental guidelines? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the order dated 31.03.2022 was non-speaking, thus violating Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the guidelines issued by the department. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in R.K. Buildcreations Private Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer reported in [{2024} 462 ITR 478 (Raj)]. Revenue's Contentions: The respondent defended the impugned order but was unable to distinguish the present case from the precedent cited by the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2024:RJ-JP:45757-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5867/2022 Ramesh Chand Maheshwari S/o Shri Laxmi Narain Maheshwari, Resident Of 3, Shubham Enclave, Jamna Lal Bajaj Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur 302001 ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Jaipur Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur 302005. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Siddharth Ranka, Adv. with Ms.Satwika Jha, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sandeep Pathak, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Order 05/11/2024 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL):- 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of notice dated 14.03.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), order dated 31.03.2022 passed under Section 148(d) of the Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 is non-speaking and is in violation of Section 148A of the Act and the guidelines dated 01.08.2022 issued by the department. Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in R.K. Buildcreations Private Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer reported in [{2024} 462 ITR 478 (Raj)]. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents albeit, defends the impugned order is not able to distinguish the present case from the decision cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. (Uploaded on 08/11/2024 at 11:18:46 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:40:52 AM)

[2024:RJ-JP:45757-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-5867/2022] 4. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that reply filed by the petitioner was brushed aside by stating that the reply filed was not satisfactory. 5. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent to proceed with the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act in accordance with law. (UMA SHANKER VYAS), J (AVNEESH JHINGAN), J GAURAV SHARMA /HS/46 Reportable:- No Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 08/11/2024 at 11:18:46 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:40:52 AM)

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →