GURUBACHAN SINGH SHAHNEY S/O SH. RAMSINGH SHAHNEY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/6060/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02028870202226 April 2022Author: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid and impermissible in law. The Court's reasoning was based on its prior decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions) dated January 27, 2022. In that judgment, the Court had quashed similar notices. Therefore, following the precedent set in the Sudesh Taneja case, the impugned notice in the present petition was also quashed and set aside. The petition was allowed, granting relief to the petitioner by invalidating the notice. No other issues were decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gurubachan Singh Shahney, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. The respondent was the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota. The petitioner stated that no assessment order had been passed by the Assessing Authority to date. The core of the petition concerned a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that this notice was invalid and impermissible in law, relying on a previous decision of the same court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid and impermissible in law. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the issue regarding the validity of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was no longer res integra. They relied on the Division Bench's decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions), rendered on January 27, 2022, which had found such notices to be invalid and impermissible in law and consequently quashed them. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue on this issue.

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. 6060/2022 Gurubachan Singh Shahney S/o Sh. Ramsingh Shahney, Aged About 78 Years, R/o H. No. 156, Near Central School Ist, Bhimganjmandi, Kota Rajasthan India 324002. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(1), Kota Dainik Navjyoti, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota, Rajasthan - 324009. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arunabh Dey, Advocate for Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Advocate with Mr. N.S. Bhati, Advocate HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment / Order 26/04/2022 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 (2 of 2) [CW-6060/2022] 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 Mohita /1

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →