VINOD KUMAR ROONGTA, S/O SHRI ANANDILAL ROONGTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/9253/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02049589202219 July 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition without commenting on the merits of the case. The Court directed the respondents to examine all grounds raised by the petitioner, particularly the impediment under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and pass an order in accordance with the law. The Court held that if the petitioner's grievance remained unredressed after the order, they would be at liberty to avail such remedies as may be available under the law. The operative direction was to consider the grounds raised and pass a reasoned order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vinod Kumar Roongta, filed a writ petition challenging the notice issued under Section 148(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner raised several grounds for objection, including a bar to initiation of proceedings under Section 149 of the Act, as amended. The respondents, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Union of India, argued that only a notice had been issued and a reply had been invited and filed. They stated that no final order had been passed by the authority, and the petitioner's reply, including the objection regarding Section 149, would be duly considered before passing an order in accordance with the law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable at this stage when only a notice under Section 148(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been issued and no final order has been passed by the Assessing Officer. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that proceedings could not be initiated due to a bar created under Section 149 of the Act, as amended, and raised serious objections to the maintainability of the proceedings. The petitioner relied on the grounds raised in the writ petition. Revenue's Contention: The respondents contended that the writ petition was premature as the Assessing Officer had not yet passed any order. They stated that the petitioner's reply, which included objections regarding the bar under Section 149, would be considered, and an order would be passed in accordance with the law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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.9253/2022 Vinod Kumar Roongta, S/o Shri Anandilal Roongta, Aged About 68 Years, R/o 55, Sangram Colony, C-Scheme, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 6, NCR Building, Jaipur. 2. Union Of India, Through Finance Secretary, Ministry Of Finance (Department Of Revenue), Central Board Of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi 110002 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gunjan Pathak, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Advocate with Mr. N.S. Bhatti, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 19/07/2022 Serious objection to the maintainability of the proceedings initiated by issuance of notice under Section 148(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1961”) has been taken on various grounds including the ground that such proceedings could not be initiated against the petitioner because of bar created under Section 149 of the Act of 1961 as amended. Learned counsel for respondents has raised preliminary objection by stating that at present only a notice has been issued and reply has been invited, which has been filed. He would submit that till date the Authority has not passed any order. According to (Uploaded on 30/07/2022 at 11:19:00 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:44:29 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-9253/2022] learned counsel for the Revenue, the reply filed by the petitioner would be duly considered and only after due application of mind including specific ground with regard to bar under Section 149 of the Act of 1961, order shall be passed in accordance with the law. In view of the above submissions, without commenting on the merits of the case, we are not inclined to keep this matter pending but to dispose off the same with the direction to the respondents to examine every ground which has been raised before it including those which have been raised in this writ petition, particularly the ground with regard to impediment under Section 149 of the Act of 1961 and pass an order in accordance with the law. In case the grievance of the petitioner still remain not redressed, it would be open for the petitioner to avail such remedy as may be available to him under the law. The writ petition is disposed off accordingly. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J Karan/16 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 30/07/2022 at 11:19:00 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:44:29 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 →