SIGNATURE INFRASTRUCTURES vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (2) JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
CW/5526/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02027616202208 April 2022Author: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue involved in the petition was no longer res integra, as it had been decided by a Division Bench of the same Court on January 27, 2022, in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-l(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 Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued in the present case for the same reasons stated in the Sudesh Taneja judgment. The petition was allowed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Signature Infrastructures, a registered partnership firm, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. The petition challenged an order of assessment passed by the Assessing Authority. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the issue in the present petition was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the same Court on January 27, 2022, in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-l(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.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are invalid and impermissible in law? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the issue concerning the validity of Section 148 notices had been definitively settled by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-l(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch), where such notices were quashed. Therefore, the present petition should follow the same precedent. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue on this issue. However, the revenue was represented by counsel.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN 1 BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5526/2022 Signature Infrastructures, A Registered Partnership Firm, Represented Herein Through Its Partner Sh. Ajay Yadav S/o Late Sh. Shriram Yadav, Aged About 59 Years, R/o 32Bc, Keshav Nagar, Civil Lines, Hawa Sadak, Jaipur. Versus

1.

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (2) Jaipur, Having Address At New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan . D* -t+J" gax-+A s L;aLi7$ & & +*

2.

Central ~oa:cd~f;..~i'rect Taxes, M~n~~sbFy Of Finance, North " I -rz, Block, ~ g w ~ ~ e l h i - 110011 Through Its @ha.iman. p* I, " * "% I "i:~~.~~s~ondents ljX& d Qr v r 'fiX~ a >. .A 1 b%,, S - For Petlbfo%er(s) : Mr. Ashish Sharma ,f ?= ..""""' For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop -...-- Singh with Mr. N.S. Bhati & = k ~ h

HON'BLE THE ACTING CH MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA 08/04/2022 . Mr. Anuroop Sing I enters appearance on behalf of the respondent Advance copy o n supplied to learned counsel for the respo At the outset, le or the petitioner upon "9 Ward-l(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-552612022] 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. -7 - (SAMEER JAIN$$ (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVA"STj$VA),ACTING CJ Arun/lKP/96

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →