RAJENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI HIMMAT SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/4156/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02020031202215 March 2022Author: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. It held that the issue involved was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the same Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. on January 27, 2022. 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 impugned notice issued in the present case was also quashed and set aside. The petition was allowed on the basis of the reasoning provided in the Sudesh Taneja judgment. No other issues were decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajendra Singh, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the issue was settled by a previous Division Bench decision of the same High Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch). In that case, notices issued under Section 148 were held to be invalid and quashed. The petitioner sought similar relief in the present case. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer and the 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 Division Bench's decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr.? (Question of law) Contentions: Assessee: The petitioner contended that the present case is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment in Sudesh Taneja, where notices under Section 148 were quashed. Therefore, the impugned notice should also be quashed. Revenue: No specific contentions were recorded for the revenue in the judgment.

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. 4156/2022 Rajendra Singh S/o Shri Himmat Singh, Having His Address At D-66A, Sawai Madho Singh Road, Bani Park, Jaipur In The State Of Rajasthan - 302001 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Jaipur Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302005 2. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Ministry Of Finance, Having Its Address At North Block, New Delhi-110011 Through Its Chairman. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka, 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 /5

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →