INDER KAUR AND SONS HOTEL AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/4003/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02019568202211 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 that the petitioner's counsel stated that the issue involved was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the same court on January 27, 2022, in 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 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 in the present case was also invalid and impermissible. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Inder Kaur And Sons Hotel And Resorts Private Limited, through its Director, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench. The petition challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur. The Central Board of Direct Taxes was also a respondent. The petitioner argued that the issue was already decided by a Division Bench of the same court in a previous case, Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr., decided on January 27, 2022.

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 of this Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions). Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the issue is no longer res integra, as it has been conclusively decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforementioned Sudesh Taneja case, where notices issued under Section 148 were found to be invalid and quashed. Therefore, the impugned notice in the present case should also be quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention 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. 4003/2022 Inder Kaur And Sons Hotel And Resorts Private Limited, Having Its Address At 317, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur 302004 Through Its Director And Authorized Signatory Narendra Pal Singh. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur In The State Of 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. Saurabh Harsh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order 11/03/2022 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 /22

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →