LATE JAGDISH PRASAD MODI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
CW/7820/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02037194202317 February 2025Author: AVNEESH JHINGAN,PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed the assessment order dated 30.05.2023 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found that the petitioner's reliance on the Supreme Court judgments in Seahorse Mercantile Company Private Limited and Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal was persuasive. The revenue could not distinguish the present case from these precedents. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Jaipur (Respondent No.1), to pass a fresh order. This fresh order must address the objections raised by the petitioner. The operative direction was for the petitioner's representative to appear before Respondent No.1 on 17.03.2025 at 11:00 A.M. to avoid further delay. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Late Jagdish Prasad Modi (through his legal heir Smt. Sushila Devi Modi), filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 30.05.2023. This order was passed by the Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Jaipur, under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary issues raised by the petitioner pertained to the assessment proceedings being time-barred and the applicability of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The petitioner sought to have the impugned order quashed and the department directed to pass a fresh order after considering their objections.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are time-barred? 2. Whether the instructions issued by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, provide a remedy to the department in this case? The petitioner contended that the assessment proceedings were time-barred. They relied on the Supreme Court decision in Seahorse Mercantile Company Private Limited vs. Officer of the Income Tax Officer & Ors. (SLP (C) No.25288/2023) decided on 28.11.2024, and the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India and others vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in (2024) 469 I.T.R. 46. The petitioner sought quashing of the order and a fresh assessment after considering their objections. The revenue defended the impugned order but was unable to distinguish the case from the citations relied upon by the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2025:RJ-JP:6904-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7820/2023 Late Jagdish Prasad Modi, Through His Legal Heir Smt. Sushila Devi Modi Resident Of 201, Nemi Sagar Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur- 302006. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Jaipur, Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur- 302005 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-1, Jaipur, Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur- 302005. 3. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, Having Its Address At North Block, New Delhi, Through Its Chairman. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Siddharth Ranka (through V.C.) with Ms.Apeksha Bapna & Mr.Rohan Chatter For Respondent(s) : Mr.Anuroop Singhi with Mr.N.S. Bhati & Mr.Aditya Khandelwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR

Order 17/02/2025

1.

This petition is filed challenging the assessment order dated 30.05.2023 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).

2.

Inter alia the issue raised is with regard to the proceedings being time barred and as to whether the instructions issued by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain

[2025:RJ-JP:6904-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-7820/2023] Officer & Ors. (SLP (C) No.25288/2023) decided on 28.11.2024, seeks limited relief that the impugned order be 17.03.2025 at 11:00 A.M. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Riya/50

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →