SUSHIL KUMAR AGARWAL, S/O SALECK CHAND AGARWAL 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 Supreme Court in Union of India & Others Vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court had directed that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Act, which were subject to writ petitions, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act and construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was directed to provide information and material to the assessees within thirty days, allowing them two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from 01.04.2021 till date. Thereafter, Assessing Officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and then issue notice under Section 148 as substituted. All defenses available to the assessees and the 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, Sushil Kumar Agarwal, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, challenging an action by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Jaipur. The petitioner's counsel 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. The Supreme Court's order dealt with notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were subject to writ petitions before various High Courts. The High Court noted that its writ petition would be disposed of in terms of the Supreme Court's directions.
What were the issues?
1. Whether notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were subject to challenge before various High Courts, should be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 and Section 148A of the IT Act). Assessee's contention: The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Others Vs. Ashish Agarwal, which provided directions for treating such notices. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.
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. 8482/2022 Sushil Kumar Agarwal, S/o Saleck Chand Agarwal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o 69, Vivekanad Colony, Naya Kheda, Amba Bari, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302039. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, WD 1(3), Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302005 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Judgment / Order 28/06/2022 When this case came up for hearing today, learned counsel for the petitioner 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: “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 (Uploaded on 01/07/2022 at 05:23:42 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:01:45 AM) (2 of 3) [CW-8482/2022] 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 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 (Uploaded on 01/07/2022 at 05:23:42 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:01:45 AM) (3 of 3) [CW-8482/2022] 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. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J Mohita /1 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 01/07/2022 at 05:23:42 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:01:45 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 →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026