ARUN SHAH SON OF MALI RAM SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/4310/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02021221202214 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. 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 quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued to the petitioner in the present case for the same reasons. The petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a prior Division Bench judgment of the same High Court has declared notices under Section 148 invalid, subsequent similar notices should also be quashed. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Arun Shah, challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's counsel informed the High Court that a Division Bench of the same court had previously ruled on a similar issue. In a decision dated 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), 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 6 (1), Jaipur, and the Central Board of Direct Taxes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid and impermissible in law? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issue was no longer res integra, as a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court had already decided in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch) that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were invalid and impermissible. Therefore, the notice issued to the petitioner should also be quashed. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue's side.

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. 4310/2022 Arun Shah Son Of Mali Ram Shah, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of 5-Da-20, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur 302004, Rajasthan India ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6 (1), Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302005 2. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110011 Through Its Chairman. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Kedawat For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment / Order 14/03/2022 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 Arun/Simple Kumawat /146

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →