CHANDAN MOOLCHANDANI SON OF SHRI SIRUMAL MOOLCHANDANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/6029/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02030990202225 April 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the present case, was invalid and impermissible in law. The Court's decision was based on the reasoning provided in its earlier judgment dated January 27, 2022, in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (and batch of petitions). The ratio decidendi is that if similar notices have been previously quashed by a Division Bench of the same High Court for being invalid, then subsequent identical notices should also be quashed. The operative direction was to quash and set aside the impugned notice and allow the writ petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Chandan Moolchandani, filed a writ petition challenging 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 already decided by a Division Bench of the same High Court in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. on January 27, 2022. In that decision, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act were held to be invalid and impermissible in law and were consequently quashed. The respondents, the Income Tax Officer and the Central Board of Direct Taxes, were represented by counsel.

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 prior decision of this Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the issue involved in the present petition is no longer res integra, as it has been conclusively decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sudesh Taneja. The petitioner relied on this precedent to argue that the impugned notice should be quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue's counsel. However, by appearing and being represented, they were afforded an opportunity to present their case.

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.6029/2022 Chandan Moolchandani Son Of Shri Sirumal Moolchandani, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of 140A, Girnar Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur 302021 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3) Jaipur Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur 302005 2. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Ministry Of Finance, Having Its Address At North Block, New Delhi- 110011 Through Its Chairman. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Apeksha Bapna, Advocate for Mr. Siddharth Ranka, 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 Singhi, 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 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 29/04/2022 at 10:02:33 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:04 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-6029/2022] 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/12 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 29/04/2022 at 10:02:33 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:04 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 →