VIJAYA JAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/6478/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02033888202202 May 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. The court noted the submission by the petitioner's counsel that the issue was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the same court on 27.01.2022 in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. In that earlier decision, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Applying this precedent, the High Court held that the impugned notice in the present case was also invalid and impermissible. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vijaya Jain, through her Power of Attorney Holder, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench. The respondent was the Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2). The petitioner contended that a final assessment order had not yet been passed. The core of the petitioner's argument was that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were invalid and impermissible in law, citing a previous decision of the same court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. The court was asked to quash these notices.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are invalid and impermissible in law? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were invalid and impermissible in law. This contention was based on the precedent set by a Division Bench of the same court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr., dated 27.01.2022, where similar notices were quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that learned counsel for the respondent entered appearance and was supplied with an advance copy of the petition. However, no specific arguments or contentions were recorded for the revenue in the provided text.

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. 6478/2022 Vijaya Jain, 104, Jai Jawan Colony, Scheme No. 2, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302014 Through its Power of Attorney Holder Shri Kailash Chand Jain. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Income Tax Department, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road-Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Priyesh Kasliwal Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Akshay Sharma on behalf of Mr. Nikhil Simlote Advocate. HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 02/05/2022 Mr. Akshay Sharma, 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 would submit that till date, final assessment order has not been passed. 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 Income Tax Act, 1961 have been found to be invalid and impermissible in law and quashed. (Uploaded on 09/05/2022 at 11:42:20 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:01:58 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-6478/2022] 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 MANOJ NARWANI /10 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 09/05/2022 at 11:42:20 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:01:58 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 →