LATE SHRI SATYA NARAIN NATHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/4211/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02020815202215 March 2022Author: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue involved in the present petition was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the same court in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. on January 27, 2022. The Division Bench had previously ruled that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were invalid and impermissible in law and had quashed them. Following this precedent, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued in the present case for the same reasons. The petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar issue concerning the validity of Section 148 notices has been decided by a coordinate bench, subsequent petitions on the same grounds should be allowed based on the earlier decision.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ms. Kusum Natha, through her legal heir, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. The petition challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's counsel stated that the issue was no longer res integra, citing a previous decision by a Division Bench of the same court on January 27, 2022, in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions). In that decision, notices issued under Section 148 were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. The present petition was filed against the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur, and the Union of India.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid and impermissible in law? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the issue involved in the present petition is no longer res integra, as it has been decided by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions) on January 27, 2022. The petitioner relied on this precedent, arguing that the notices issued under Section 148 in those cases were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific contention 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. 4211/2022 Late Shri Satya Narain Natha, Through Legal Heir Ms. Kusum Natha, D/o Late Shri Satya Narain Natha, Aged About 62 Years, R/o 2438, Khazane Walaon Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur, NCR Building, Jaipur 2. 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. Gunjan Pathak, Advocate HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment / Order 15/03/2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset would submit that the issue involved in this petition is no longer res integra as it has been put to an end by Division Bench of this Court in the decision rendered on 27.01.2022 in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, 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 Mohita /8

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →