KAMAL SHARMA S/O RAM PRASAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/628/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02104147202219 May 2025Author: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MUKESH RAJPUROHIT2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the view taken by the assessing officer was hyper-technical. The Court noted that the petitioner's reply was available on record and the impugned order was passed approximately one month after the objections were filed, without considering them. The Court found that the intent of the procedure introduced by Section 148A of the Act had been defeated on a technical basis. Consequently, the impugned order dated 21.07.2022 was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the ITO Ward No. 6(2), Jaipur, to proceed in accordance with law for deciding the objections. The petitioner was directed to appear before the ITO on 04.06.2025 at 11:00 AM.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kamal Sharma, is challenging an order dated 21.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For assessment year 2015-2016, a notice under Section 148 was initially issued on 13.04.2021. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal, a fresh notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on 26.05.2022, requiring a reply by 13.06.2022. The petitioner filed a response on 24.06.2022. The impugned order was passed on 21.07.2022, stating that the objections were not filed within the specified time.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be quashed on the ground that the objections filed by the petitioner were not considered within the stipulated time. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Income Tax Officer (ITO) took a hyper-technical view by rejecting the objections solely on the grounds of delay, despite the reply being on record and the impugned order being passed almost a month after the objections were filed. The petitioner contended that this defeated the intent of the procedure introduced by Section 148A. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2025:RJ-JP:21062-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 628/2023 Kamal Sharma S/o Ram Prasad, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of 42, Lal Singh Judo Colony, Near Jaipuriya Hospital. Tonk Road, Jaipur - 302018 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Ncr Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order 19/05/2025

1.

This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 21.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for short (‘the Act’).

2.

The brief facts are that for assessment year 2015-2016 petitioner was issued notice dated 13.04.2021 u/s 148 of the Act. In compliance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal reported in (2022 INSC 510), the notice dated 26.05.2022 was issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act and therein it was specified that the reply be filed on or before 13.06.2022. The petitioner filed response on 24.06.2022. The impugned order was passed on 21.07.2022 stating that the reply/objections were not filed within the specified time period.

[2025:RJ-JP:21062-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-628/2023] The view taken by the assessing officer is hyper technical. The reply filed by the petitioner was available on record and almost one month after filing of the objections, the impugned order was passed that too without considering the objections. The intent of the procedure provided by insertion of Section 148A of the Act has been defeated on technical basis.

3.

The impugned order dated 21.07.2022 is set aside and the matter is remitted to ITO Ward No.6(2), Jaipur to proceed in accordance with law for deciding the objections.

4.

The writ petition is allowed.

5.

In order to avoid any further complication, let petitioner or through his representative appear in the office of ITO Ward No.6(2), Jaipur on 04.06.2025 at 11:00 AM.

6.

Pending application(s) stands disposed of. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT), J (AVNEESH JHINGAN), J GAURAV /91

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →