VAIJANTI DADHICH D/O SURYA PRAKASH DHADICH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/8519/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02045655202228 June 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court declined to interfere with the orders passed under Section 148A(d) solely on the ground of denial of adjournment, noting that no extraordinary grounds for seeking such adjournment were placed before the court. However, the court acknowledged the substantial point raised by the petitioners regarding the incorrect treatment of a single cash deposit of Rs. 34,01,000/- as two separate transactions totaling Rs. 68,02,000/-. The court held that this objection, which pertains to the factual correctness and the amount of alleged income chargeable to tax being less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, should be considered by the authority in the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act. The assessing authority was directed to decide this objection with reference to the material placed by the petitioners and by collecting other relevant materials, including bank transactions and statements, providing clear reasons. The petitions were disposed of at this stage with liberty to the petitioners to revive their cases if necessary.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Urmila, Surya Prakash Dhadich, and Vaijanti Dadhich, challenged proceedings initiated under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent orders passed under Section 148A(d) and notices under Section 148. The primary grievance was that a prayer for a short adjournment to respond to Section 148A notices was denied, leading to the passing of orders. The petitioners contended that a single cash deposit of Rs. 34,01,000/- was erroneously treated as two separate deposits totaling Rs. 68,02,000/-, thereby circumventing the threshold under Section 149 of the Act. The assessment years are not explicitly stated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the denial of a short adjournment to file a response to notices under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, vitiated the subsequent orders passed under Section 148A(d) and notices under Section 148. Assessee's Contention: The petitioners argued that despite a request for a short adjournment to respond to the Section 148A notices, no time was granted, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. They specifically pointed out that a single cash deposit of Rs. 34,01,000/- was wrongly treated as two deposits aggregating to Rs. 68,02,000/-, which was done to bypass the bar under Section 149 of the Act. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the revenue regarding the denial of adjournment or the treatment of the cash deposit. However, the court's observation implies that the revenue proceeded with the assessment based on the information available.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148A(d),Section 148,Section 149

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8508/2022 Urmila, W/o Surya Prakash Dhadich, Aged 54 Years, R/o Garh Ke Same, Dudu, Jaipur, 303008, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward, Maharana Pratap Circle, Udaipur Main Road, Banswara, Banswara, Rajasthan, 327001 ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8510/2022 Surya Prakash S/o Durga Lal Dadhich, Aged 56 Years, R/o Kile Ke Pass, Dudu, Jaipur 303008, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), New Central Revenue Building, B.D. Road, Jaipur 302005, Rajasthan. ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8519/2022 Vaijanti Dadhich D/o Surya Prakash Dhadich, Aged 28 Years, R/o Kile Ke Pass, Dudu, Jaipur 303008, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward, Maharana Pratap Circle, Udaipur Main Road, Banswara, Banswara, Rajasthan 327001. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Gargeiya, Advocate with Mr. Anurabh Dey, Advocate Mr. Devang Gargeiya, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA (Uploaded on 02/07/2022 at 01:23:37 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:01:49 AM) (2 of 3) [CW-8508/2022] Order 28/06/2022 Heard. Challenge to initiation of proceedings under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “I.T. Act”), as also orders dated 29.03.2022 passed under clause (d) of Section 148A of the I.T. Act and issuance of subsequent notices under Section 148 of the I.T. Act have been assailed primarily on the ground that even though a prayer for short adjournment was made to file response to notices under Section 148A of the I.T. Act, despite having been duly acknowledged, no time was granted and the orders were passed which has resulted in miscarriage of justice because according to the petitioners one single transaction of alleged cash deposit of Rs.34,01,000/- has been taken into consideration as two different cash deposits to make it Rs.68,02,000/- only to surpass the bar under Section 149 of the I.T. Act. We find that though notices under Section 148A of the I.T. Act were given to the petitioners to file their response within the statutory period of seven days, the petitioners applied for adjournment. The orders passed under clause (d) of Section 148A of the I.T. Act do not refer to such prayer for adjournment. However, taking into consideration that the material placed before us does not show any extraordinary grounds for seeking such adjournment, only on that ground we are not inclined to interfere with the orders which have been passed under clause (d) of Section 148A of the I.T. Act. However, at the same time taking into consideration the very substantial point which has been raised by the petitioners that one single cash deposit of Rs.34,01,000/- (Uploaded on 02/07/2022 at 01:23:37 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:01:49 AM) (3 of 3) [CW-8508/2022] has been taken as two different transactions, which according to the petitioners is factually incorrect and not borne out from any of the record including transactions made as entered in the accounts of the bank, we are of the view that this objection should be taken into consideration by the authority concerned in proceedings under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, which have now been initiated. The authority would be obliged under the law to decide this very objection with reference to the relevant material, which has been placed before it by the petitioners as also by collecting other material including the bank transactions, slips, statements and specific record and clear reasons on the objection raised by the petitioners that the alleged income chargeable to tax is less than Rs.50,00,000/- as there is only single alleged transaction of Rs.34,01,000/- and not two transactions as stated in the proceedings drawn under Section 148A of the I.T. Act. With the aforesaid directions, these petitions, at this stage, are disposed off with liberty to the petitioners to revive their cases, if eventuality so arises. A copy of this order be placed on record in each connected petition. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J Karan/41, 42 & 43 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 02/07/2022 at 01:23:37 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:01:49 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 →