VIKAS KUMAR JAIN SON OF SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/3533/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02016565202214 March 2022Author: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted the submission of the petitioner's counsel that the issue involved was identical to that decided in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions), where 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 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. The ratio decidendi is that if a notice under Section 148 has been held to be invalid by a coordinate bench of the High Court, subsequent identical notices should also be quashed on the same grounds.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vikas Kumar Jain, 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 and the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The petitioner's counsel brought to the court's attention a prior decision by a Division Bench of the same High Court, rendered on January 27, 2022, in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. In that case, notices issued under Section 148 were held to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. The petitioner argued that the present case 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 prior judgment 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 petitioner contended that the issue in the present writ petition was no longer res integra, as it had been conclusively decided by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the 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 made by the respondents (Income Tax Officer and Central Board of Direct Taxes).

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. 3533/2022 Vikas Kumar Jain Son Of Sushil Kumar Jain, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of 159, Gandhi Nagar Barkat Nagar Jaipur, 302015, Rajasthan India ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Circle, (Intl Tax), Jaipur, Room No. 413, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 30200 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 /144

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →