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

PDF · subscribers
CW/4151/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02020189202215 March 2022Author: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. The Court noted the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 27.01.2022. 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 High Court held that the impugned notice issued in the present case was also invalid and impermissible. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajendra Singh, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Jaipur, and the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The petitioner argued that the issue was already decided by a Division Bench of the same High Court in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr., dated 27.01.2022, where similar notices under Section 148 were held to be invalid and quashed. The court was informed that the present petition involved the same issue.

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 precedent set by the Division Bench in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the issue is no longer res integra, as it has been conclusively decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the aforementioned Sudesh Taneja case, where notices under Section 148 were quashed. Therefore, the impugned notice in the present case should also be quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions from the revenue's side regarding this issue.

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. 4151/2022 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 /3

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →