RAM SINGH S/O SHRI KAN SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/6579/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02033607202224 February 2025Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was liable to be quashed. The primary reasoning was that the assessee was not provided with a reasonable opportunity to file objections as mandated by Section 148A of the Act and the relevant departmental guidelines. The notice dated 19.03.2022 required a reply by 24.03.2022, which is only five days, falling short of the stipulated minimum of seven days. The corrigendum issued later did not rectify the procedural defect as it was a post-facto attempt to correct an error. Consequently, the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and the statutory requirements. The matter was remitted back to the respondents to decide the proceedings afresh in accordance with law, after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner was also granted liberty to file additional objections within two weeks of appearance.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ram Singh, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order dated 30.03.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessment Year in question is 2015-16. A notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on 19.03.2022, alleging cash deposits in the petitioner's bank account. The initial notice required a reply by 24.03.2022. A corrigendum was issued, attempting to change the reply date to 26.03.2022. The impugned order under Section 148A(d) was passed on 30.03.2022, after the petitioner filed a response on 06.04.2022. The procedure for Section 148A proceedings requires a minimum of seven days for filing a response.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be quashed for not providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to file objections, turning on the provisions of Section 148A of the Act and departmental guidelines. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148A(b) provided an unreasonably short period of five days for filing a reply (19.03.2022 to 24.03.2022). The subsequent corrigendum, which attempted to alter the date to 26.03.2022, was also post-facto and did not cure the defect. The impugned order was passed without affording a reasonable opportunity to object, violating the mandate of Section 148A of the Act and the departmental guidelines which stipulate a minimum of seven days for response. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JP:8165-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6579/2022 Ram Singh S/o Shri Kan Singh, Aged About 49 Years, R/o 80, Badh Bagpura, Post Thali Chaksu, District Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Circle 1 (ITO WD 1(1)), Jaipur, NCR Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ashish Agarwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Anuroop Singhi, Adv. with Mr.N.S. Bhati, Adv. & Mr.Aditya Khandelwal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 24/02/2025 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 30.03.2022 passed under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’). 2. The brief facts are that notice dated 19.03.2022 under Section 148A(b) of the Act for Assessment Year 2015-16 was issued on the basis of information with the department that the petitioner has made the cash deposits in the bank account. As per notice dated 19.03.2022, reply was to be filed on or before 24.03.2022. A corrigendum was issued on 29.03.2022 which is not happily worded but conveys that the date to file reply be read as ‘26.03.2022’. The impugned order under Section 148A(d) was passed on 30.03.2022. The petitioner filed response on 06.04.2022. 3. The procedure for initiating the proceedings under section 148A is stipulated under section 148A of the Act. The department (Uploaded on 03/03/2025 at 10:02:33 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:40:17 AM)

[2025:RJ-JP:8165-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-6579/2022] had issued guidelines dated 01.08.2022 for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. 4. From the combined reading of the provisions of Section 148A of the Act and the guidelines the assessee is to be given a time from seven days to thirty days for filing response to the notice. As per the notice dated 19.03.2022 reply was to be filed on or before 24.03.2022 i.e. within five days. The issuance of corrigendum does not help the cause of the department as by post facto act the attempt to correct error was made. The impugned order has been passed without providing a reasonable opportunity to file objection to the notice under Section 148A (b). 5. The impugned order is not in accordance with the mandate of Section 148A of the Act and is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondents to decide the proceedings in pursuance to the notice issued under Section 148A(b) in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner, if so advised, shall be at liberty to file additional objection within two weeks from appearance before the respondent. 6. In order to avoid further delay, the petitioner or through his representative shall appear in the office of the respondent 24.03.2025 at 11:00 AM. 7. The writ petition is allowed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR), J (AVNEESH JHINGAN), J Himanshu Soni/35 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 03/03/2025 at 10:02:33 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:40:17 AM)

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →