ANUP AGARWAL SON OF PREM NARAYAN AGARWAL vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/6379/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02026604202204 May 2022Author: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in its judgment dated 04/05/2022, allowed the petition. The Court noted the submission by the petitioner's counsel that the issue was settled by the Division Bench's decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. on 27.01.2022, where notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were held to be invalid and impermissible in law and were consequently quashed. Following this precedent, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued in the present case. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anup Agarwal, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents were the Assistant Commissioners of Income Tax and the Union of India. The petitioner's counsel stated that no final assessment order had been passed to date. The core of the petition revolved around the validity of the Section 148 notices. The petitioner's counsel argued that the issue was settled by a previous Division Bench decision of the same court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are invalid and impermissible in law, and consequently liable to be quashed. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the issue concerning the validity of Section 148 notices was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the High Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch) on 27.01.2022, where such notices were found to be invalid and quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue's counsel on the merits of the case. However, learned counsel for the respondents entered appearance and an advance copy of the petition was supplied to them.

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. 6379/2022 Anup Agarwal Son Of Prem Narayan Agarwal, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of 92, Shivaji Chowk, Brahmpuri Kurra, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, Circle 4, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, Circle 5, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Union Of India, Through Finance Secretary, Ministry Of Finance (Department Of Revenue), Central Board Of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi 110002. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nemi Chand Choudhary 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 04/05/2022 Mr. Anuroop Singhi, learned counsel enters appearance on behalf of the respondents. Advance copy of the petition has been supplied to learned counsel for the respondents. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner, upon instructions, 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-6379/2022] 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-13

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →