MOHAMMED BURHANUDDIN KATTHAWALA S/O BURHANUDDIN KATTHAWALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/5295/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02026093202207 April 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 by the petitioner's counsel that no assessment order had been passed. Relying on its own prior decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr., the Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were invalid and impermissible in law. Consequently, the impugned notice in the present case was quashed and set aside. The ratio decidendi is that notices issued under Section 148 are invalid if they do not comply with the principles laid down in the Sudesh Taneja judgment, especially when no assessment order has been passed. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mohammed Burhanuddin Katthawala, through Mohsin And Co., filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. The respondent was the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota. The petitioner challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Crucially, the petitioner's counsel stated that no assessment order had yet been passed by the Assessing Authority. The petitioner relied on a previous decision of the same High 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, considering that no assessment order has been passed by the Assessing Authority. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue was no longer res integra, citing the Division Bench decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch) dated 27.01.2022, which held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue.

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. 5295/2022 Mohammed Burhanuddin Katthawala S/o Burhanuddin Katthawala, Mohsin And Co. Jhalawar Road, Kota 324007, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota Having Its Address At Office of The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Kota, Central Revenue Building Rawat Bhata Road, Kota Rajasthan Through Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Parinitoo Jain, Advocate through VC HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment / Order 07/04/2022 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-5295/2022] 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 /4

More judgments on Section 148

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →