BABITA AGARWAL WIFE OF SHRI RAM KISHORE AGARWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/6066/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02030995202225 April 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's decision was based on the submission of the petitioner's counsel that the issue had been decided by a Division Bench of the same court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch), where notices under Section 148 were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. The High Court found the present case to be covered by the aforesaid decision. The petition was allowed, and the notice was quashed and set aside. No other issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Babita 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. 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 settled by a previous Division Bench decision 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? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issue was no longer res integra, as a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch) had already held notices issued under Section 148 to be invalid and impermissible and had quashed them. Therefore, the impugned notice in the present case should also be quashed. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific contention from the revenue.

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.6066/2022 Babita Agarwal Wife Of Shri Ram Kishore Agarwal, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of E-89, Kedia Palace, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur - 302023. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1) Jaipur Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass 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) : Mr. Saurav Harsh, 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 10:05:10 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:02 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-6066/2022] 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/16 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 29/04/2022 at 10:05:10 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:02 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 →