YOGESH MULCHAND SAJNANI SON OF SHRI MULCHAND SANJANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/6586/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02034333202204 May 2022Author: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. The Court noted the submission of the petitioner's counsel that the issue involved was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. In that earlier decision, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Applying the same reasoning, the High Court held that the impugned notice issued in the present case was also invalid and impermissible. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Yogesh Mulchand Sajnani, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. The petition challenged notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1), Jaipur, and the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The petitioner's counsel stated that a final assessment order had not yet been passed. The core of the petitioner's argument was that the issue was already decided by a Division Bench of the same court in a previous case, Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr., where similar notices under Section 148 were held to be invalid and quashed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are invalid and impermissible in law, considering the precedent set by this Court. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue of the validity of notices under Section 148 is no longer res integra, as it has been conclusively decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch), where such notices were found to be invalid and quashed. Therefore, the impugned notice in the present case should also be quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the revenue's side regarding the validity of the notices or the applicability of the Sudesh Taneja judgment. The revenue's counsel entered appearance and received an advance copy of the petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6586/2022 Yogesh Mulchand Sajnani Son Of Shri Mulchand Sanjani, Aged About 41 Years, Permanent Resident Of 44, Rajamal Ka Talab, Kanwar Nagar, Jaipur Currently Residing At Mohd. Sheik Abdulla Gali, Villa A-3, 317, 2Bst Mankhool, Dubai 2126 Through His Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Narender Mulchandani S/o Shri Ramchandra Mulchandani. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1), Jaipur Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Ministry Of Finance, Having Its Address At North Block, New Delhi-110011 Through Its Chairman ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurav Harsh on behalf of Mr. Siddharth Ranka For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akshay Sharma on behalf of Mr. Nikhil Simlote HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order 04/05/2022 Mr. Akshay Sharma on behalf of Mr. Nikhil Simlote, learned counsel enters appearance on behalf of the respondents. Advance copy of the petition has been supplied to him. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that till date final assessment order has not been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in this petition is no longer res integra as it has (2 of 2) [CW-6586/2022] Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions) where the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been found to be invalid and impermissible in law and quashed.

In view of the above statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned notice issued in the present case, for the reasons stated in the order dated 27.01.2022 passed in the aforesaid cases, is also quashed and set aside and the petition is allowed. (SAMEER JAIN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ N.Gandhi/16

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →