VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA S/O HEERA LAL GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/6307/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02027941202202 May 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted the submission by the petitioner's counsel that no assessment order had been passed. Crucially, the Court acknowledged the petitioner's argument that the issue of the validity of notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had been decided by a Division Bench of the same Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. on 27.01.2022, where such notices were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Following this precedent, the High Court held that the impugned notice issued in the present case was also invalid and impermissible in law. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed. The operative direction was to quash the notice.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Virendra Kumar Gupta, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. The respondent was the Income Tax Officer, Circle 4, Jaipur. The petitioner stated that no assessment order had been passed by the Assessing Authority to date. The core of the petition concerned notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that these notices were invalid based on a prior decision of the same court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are invalid and impermissible in law, in light of the decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions)? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue was no longer res integra, as a Division Bench of the High Court in Sudesh Taneja had already held notices issued under Section 148 to be invalid and impermissible in law 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 regarding the validity of the notices. However, the revenue's counsel entered an appearance.

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.6307/2022 Virendra Kumar Gupta S/o Heera Lal Gupta, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of 121, Marg Sankhya -B Govind Nagar East Extension Jaipur 302002, Rajasthan, India. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Circle 4, Jaipur, 302005. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Taneja, Advocate with Mr. Kartikeya Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Advocate with Mr. N.S. Bhatti, Advocate HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 02/05/2022 Mr. Anuroop Singhi, learned counsel enters appearance on behalf of the respondent. Advance copy of the petition has been supplied to learned counsel for the respondent. 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, 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 (Uploaded on 07/05/2022 at 02:31:05 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:00 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-6307/2022] 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 07/05/2022 at 02:31:05 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:00 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 →