YOGESH MULCHAND SAJNANI SON OF SHRI MULCHAND SANJANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the writ petition was to be finally disposed of in terms of the order dated 04.05.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Ashish Agarwal. The High Court directed that the authorities concerned shall proceed to decide the matter in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 10 of its order. This means that the impugned Section 148 notices issued to the assessee would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act and construed as show-cause notices. The Assessing Officer was to provide information relied upon by the Revenue, and the assessee would have a period to reply. The requirement of conducting prior inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer would pass orders under Section 148A(d) and, if necessary, issue a notice under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessee and Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and law were preserved. The Supreme Court's order was made applicable PAN India and was passed in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Yogesh Mulchand Sajnani, through his Power of Attorney Holder, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. The petition challenged certain actions of the Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1), Jaipur, and the Central Board of Direct Taxes. When the case was heard, counsel for both the petitioner and the respondents jointly submitted that the issue in the petition was covered by the Supreme Court's order dated 04.05.2022 in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Ashish Agarwal. Consequently, the High Court decided to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the Supreme Court's directions.
What were the issues?
The primary issue before the High Court was whether the writ petition, concerning notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was to be decided on its merits or if it would be governed by a recent Supreme Court ruling. The parties jointly submitted that the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Others Vs. Ashish Agarwal would cover the present case. The Supreme Court's order, in essence, dealt with the validity of reassessment notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the introduction of Section 148A by the Finance Act, 2021. The Supreme Court's direction was to treat such notices as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b) and to proceed accordingly, dispensing with the requirement of prior inquiry as a one-time measure. The High Court's task was to apply this Supreme Court order to the present writ petition.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6568/2022 Yogesh Mulchand Sajnani Son of Shri Mulchand Sanjani, aged about 41 years, Permanent Resident of 44, Rajamal Ka Talab, Kanwar Nagar, Jaipur currently residing at Mohd. Sheik Abdulla Gali, Villa A-3, 317, 2Bst Mankhool, Dubai 2126 through his Power of Attorney Holder Shri Narender Mulchandani S/o Shri Ramchandra Mulchandani. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1), Jaipur having its Address at New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, Having its address at North Block, New Delhi-110011 through its Chairman ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Ranka Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Amit Malani Advocate. HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 05/05/2022 When this case came up for hearing today, learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the issue raised in this petition would be covered by order dated 04.05.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Ashish Agarwal (Civil Appeal No. 3005/2022 and batch of appeals). Following directions have been issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case: (Uploaded on 09/05/2022 at 11:55:57 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:44:39 AM) (2 of 3) [CW-6568/2022] “10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Appeals are ALLOWED IN PART. The impugned common judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in W.T. No. 524/2021 and other allied tax appeals/petitions, is/are hereby modified and substituted as under:- (i) The impugned section 148 notices issued to the respective assessees which were issued under unamended section 148 of the IT Act, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before the various respective High Courts shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be show-cause notices in terms of section 148A(b). The assessing officer shall, within thirty days from today provide to the respective assessees information and material relied upon by the Revenue, so that the assessees can reply to the show-cause notices within two weeks thereafter; (ii) The requirement of conducting any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified authority under section 148A(a) is hereby dispensed with as a one-time measure vis-à-vis those notices which have been issued under section 148 of the unamended Act from 01.04.2021 till date, including those which have been quashed by the High Courts. Even otherwise as observed hereinabove holding any enquiry with the prior approval of specified authority is not mandatory but it is for the concerned Assessing Officer to hold any enquiry, if required; (iii) The assessing officers shall thereafter pass orders in terms of section 148A(d) in respect of each of the concerned assessees; Thereafter after following the procedure as required under section 148A may issue notice under section 148 (as substituted); (iv) All defences which may be available to the assessees including those available under section 149 of the IT Act and all rights and contentions which may be available to the concerned assessees and Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021 and in law shall continue to be available. 11. The present order shall be applicable PAN INDIA and all judgments and orders passed by different High Courts on the issue and under which (Uploaded on 09/05/2022 at 11:55:57 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:44:39 AM) (3 of 3) [CW-6568/2022] similar notices which were issued after 01.04.2021 issued under section 148 of the Act are set aside and shall be governed by the present order and shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The present order is passed in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as to avoid any further appeals by the Revenue on the very issue by challenging similar judgments and orders, with a view not to burden this Court with approximately 9000 appeals. We also observe that present order shall also govern the pending writ petitions, pending before various High Courts in which similar notices under Section 148 of the Act issued after 01.04.2021 are under challenge. 12. The impugned common judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Allahabad and the similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts, more particularly, the respective judgments and orders passed by the various High Courts particulars of which are mentioned hereinabove, shall stand modified/substituted to the aforesaid extent only. All these appeals are accordingly partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.” Accordingly, this writ petition is also finally disposed off in terms of order dated 04.05.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Ashish Agarwal (supra), as stated above. The authorities concerned shall proceed to decide the matter in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 10 of the aforesaid order. (SAMEER JAIN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ MANOJ NARWANI /29 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 09/05/2022 at 11:55:57 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:44:39 AM)
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026