RAM KISHOR AGARWAL SON OF SHRI MALIRAM AGARWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/6031/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02030992202225 April 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel, upon instructions, submitted that no assessment order had been passed. Crucially, the petitioner's counsel pointed out that the issue involved was no longer res integra, as a Division Bench of the same court, in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions) decided on January 27, 2022, had found notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to be invalid and impermissible in law and had quashed them. Following this precedent, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued in the present case and allowed the petition. The ratio decidendi is that if a notice under Section 148 has been held to be invalid by a higher bench of the same court, subsequent similar notices should also be quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ram Kishor Agarwal, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Jaipur, and the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The petitioner challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. At the time of filing the petition, no order of assessment had been passed by the Assessing Authority. The petitioner's counsel stated that the issue was no longer res integra, referencing a previous decision by a Division Bench 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. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue concerning the validity of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had been decided by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions) on January 27, 2022. The petitioner contended that based on this precedent, the impugned notice in the present case should also be quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue's counsel on the merits of the case. However, counsel for the respondents entered appearance and was supplied with an advance copy of the petition.

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.6031/2022 Ram Kishor Agarwal Son Of Shri Maliram Agarwal, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of E-89, Murlipura Scheme, Sikar Road, Jaipur- 302016. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1) 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. Nikhil Simlote, Advocate HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 25/04/2022 Mr. Nikhil Simlote, 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 10:04:22 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:44:44 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-6031/2022] 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/14 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 29/04/2022 at 10:04:22 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:44:44 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 →