BHAGWAN KAMLANI S/O SHRI LAL CHAND KAMLANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/1252/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02006776202207 April 2022Author: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ 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 same Court on January 27, 2022, in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch). In that decision, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Following this precedent, the High Court held that the impugned notice issued in the present case was also invalid and impermissible in law. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed. The operative direction was to quash the notice.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bhagwan Kamlani, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. The petition challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1), Jaipur. The petitioner contended that the final assessment order had not yet been passed. The petitioner argued that the issue was settled by a previous Division Bench decision of the same court dated January 27, 2022, in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr., where notices under Section 148 were held to be invalid and quashed. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer and the Union of India through the Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid and impermissible in law, considering the ratio laid down in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch)? Assessee's Contentions: - The petitioner argued that the issue concerning the validity of notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was no longer res integra. - Reliance was placed on the Division Bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court dated January 27, 2022, in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr., which had quashed similar notices as invalid and impermissible in law. - The petitioner also stated that a final assessment order had not yet been passed. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions from the revenue regarding the validity of the notice or any counter-arguments to the petitioner's reliance on the Sudesh Taneja case.

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. 1252/2022 Bhagwan Kamlani S/o Shri Lal Chand Kamlani, Aged About 57 Years, R/o C-60, Saket Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302004 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1), New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302005 2. Union Of India, Though Its Secretary, Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi (Nct)-110001 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vedant Agarwal Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi Advocate with Mr. Tarun Kumar Verma Advocate. HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment / Order 07/04/2022 [CW-1252/2022] 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 Sanjay Kumawat-17

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →