RAJENDRA CHOUDHARY S/O MANGALCHAND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/6918/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02035102202223 January 2023Bench: PANKAJ MITHAL,SHUBHA MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had lost its relevance as a final assessment order had already been passed based on it. The Court noted that the final assessment order could be challenged through the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 246-A of the Act. The Court found that the petitioner could raise both the issue of limitation concerning the Section 148 notice and the issue of non-furnishing of the draft assessment order before the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the High Court declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy. The writ petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the Appellate Authority within two weeks. The Court also suggested sympathetic consideration for condonation of delay by the appellate authority, given the petitioner's initial recourse to a writ petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajendra Choudhary, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 31, 2021, and the subsequent final assessment order passed on March 30, 2022. The petitioner argued that the Section 148 notice was time-barred as it was signed on the last day of limitation after office hours. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the final assessment was made without submitting a draft assessment order, which is a requirement for national faceless assessment. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), and the National Faceless Assessment Centre were the respondents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is barred by limitation, considering it was signed on the last day of limitation after office hours? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). 2. Whether the final assessment order passed under the National Faceless Assessment scheme is invalid for not being preceded by a draft assessment order? (Question of law and fact, concerning the procedure for National Faceless Assessment). Assessee's Contentions: - The Section 148 notice is time-barred as it was signed after office hours on the last day of limitation. - The final assessment order is invalid because it was made without submitting the necessary draft assessment order, which is a prerequisite for national faceless assessment. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 246-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2023/RJJP/000209] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6918/2022 Rajendra Choudhary S/o Mangalchand, 15, Bala Nand Ji Ka Rasta , Chandpole, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302001 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302005. 2. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department, Ministry Of Finance, Room No.401, 2Nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-110003. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora with Mr. Aditya Jain HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PANKAJ MITHAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 23/01/2023 1. Heard Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner through the medium of this writ petition is not only challenging the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act dated 31.03.2021, but also the final assessment order passed thereof on 30.03.2022. 3. In challenging the above notice and the order, two points have been raised. First, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act is barred by limitation as the authority to issue the notice was signed on the last day of limitation, that too after the office hours and secondly, the final assessment has been made without (Uploaded on 25/01/2023 at 12:12:12 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:44:20 AM) [2023/RJJP/000209] (2 of 2) [CW-6918/2022] submitting the draft assessment, which is necessary for the national faceless assessment. 4. The notice issued under Section 148 of the Act has lost relevance inasmuch as on its basis the final order of assessment has already been passed. The final assessment order can be challenged by means of an appeal under Section 246-A of the Act. 5. In view of the statutory remedy so available to the petitioner against the assessment order, wherein the petitioner can raise both the issues of limitation and non-furnishing of the draft assessment, we are not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in the matter. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority within a period of two weeks. In case any such appeal is filed, it will be open for the authority concerned to consider the matter of condonation of delay sympathetically, keeping in mind that the petitioner was advised to file the writ petition and the same was filed immediately within time. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (PANKAJ MITHAL),CJ KAMLESH KUMAR/RAJAT/11 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 25/01/2023 at 12:12:12 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:44:20 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 →