VIJAY WADHWANI (HUF) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/4196/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02021188202215 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 made by 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 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). 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. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision, 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 petition was allowed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vijay Wadhwani (HUF), through its Karta Vijay Kumar Wadhwani, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1), Jaipur. The petitioner contended that the issue was no longer res integra, citing a recent decision by a Division Bench of the same High Court. This decision, rendered 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), had found notices issued under Section 148 to be invalid and impermissible in law and had quashed them. The present petition was filed seeking similar relief.

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 Contentions: The petitioner argued that the issue concerning the validity of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been conclusively decided by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch) on January 27, 2022. They submitted that the notices in these cases were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Therefore, the present notice should also be quashed on the same grounds. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in opposition to the petitioner's submissions.

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. 4196/2022 Vijay Wadhwani (Huf), Having Its Registered Address At G-2 Prestige Tower, Vaishali Nagar Amrapali Marg Jaipur, Rajasthan Through Its Karta Vijay Kumar Wadhwani S/o Shri Kishan Chand Wadhwani Aged About 39 Years Resident Of 775, Ashok Chowk Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302004 ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1), New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302005 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Gupta 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 Sanjay Kumawat-62

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →