NAVRATAN AGARWAL SON OF SHRI RADHY SHYAM AGARWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/14814/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02079262202223 May 2025Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MUKESH RAJPUROHIT (V. J.)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal, held that the issue with regard to limitation and sanction has been authoritatively decided. The Court also considered the Supreme Court's decision in Seahorse Mercantile Company Private Limited Vs. Office of the Income Tax Officer & Ors., which allowed matters to be sent back for the assessee to raise objections. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted back to the respondent No.1 – Income Tax Officer to decide the objections afresh. The petitioners were granted liberty to file additional objections within two weeks and were directed to appear before the Income Tax Officer on 07.07.2025 at 11:00 A.M. The ratio decidendi is that orders passed under Section 148A(d) should be reconsidered in light of subsequent Supreme Court judgments on limitation and sanction, and assessees should be given an opportunity to raise objections.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, including Rajendra Bana (Assessment Year 2017-18), Nitu Agarwal, Manoj Agarwal, Navratan Agarwal, and Sushil Kumar Kasliwal, have filed writ petitions challenging orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitions were heard together due to similar facts and issues. The primary challenge in Rajendra Bana's case pertains to an order dated 22.07.2022 concerning AY 2017-18. The petitioners argue that the proceedings were time-barred and that a recent Supreme Court judgment was not considered when the impugned orders were passed. They also refer to another Supreme Court decision allowing matters to be sent back for fresh consideration of objections.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the proceedings initiated under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are barred by limitation, considering the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal. 2. Whether the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be set aside and the matter remitted back for fresh consideration of the assessee's objections, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Seahorse Mercantile Company Private Limited Vs. Office of the Income Tax Officer & Ors. Assessee's Contentions: The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the impugned orders were passed without considering the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal, which authoritatively decided issues of limitation and sanction. They contended that the proceedings were therefore time-barred. Furthermore, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Seahorse Mercantile Company Private Limited Vs. Office of the Income Tax Officer & Ors., the petitioners argued that even after an assessment order was passed, the matter should be sent back to allow the assessee to raise all objections against the impugned notices. Revenue's Contentions: No specific contentions for the revenue were recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JP:21789-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7024/2025 Rajendra Bana (A.y. 2017-18) S/o Shri Ram Niwas Bana, Aged About 40 Years, R/o D-128, Gandhi Nagar Colony, Merta City, Nagaur, Rajasthan- 341510. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Nagour, In Front Of Br Mirdha College, Manasar Road, Nagaur, Rajasthan- 341001. 2. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Through Its Chairman, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi (Nct)- 110001 ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14800/2022 Nitu Agarwal Wife Of Shri Manoj Agarwal, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of 30, Laxminaryanpuri, Surajpole, Jaipur - 302001 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-2, Jaipur Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur 3. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, Having Its Address At North Block, New Delhi, Through Its Chairman ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14801/2022 Manoj Agarwal Son Of Shri Navratan Agarwal, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of B-215, Laxmi Narayan Puri, Surajpole, Jaipur - 302003 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur Having Its Address

[2025:RJ-JP:21789-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-7024/2025] At New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-2, Jaipur Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur 3. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, Having Its Address At North Block, New Delhi, Through Its Chairman ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14814/2022 Navratan Agarwal Son Of Shri Radhy Shyam Agarwal, Aged About 69 Years, Resident Of B-215, Laxminaryan Puri, Surajpole Gate, Jaipur - 302003 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Jaipur Having Its Address At Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-1, Jaipur Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur 3. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, Having Its Address At North Block, New Delhi, Through Its Chairman ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15508/2022 Sushil Kumar Kasliwal S/o Shri Ram Niwas Kasliwal, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Anand Bhawan, Bapu Bazar, Chomu, Jaipur- 303702, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Ward 7(1), Income Tax Department, Sidhnath Bhawan, Rajas, Jyoti Nagar, Lal Kothi Scheme, Behind New Vidhansabha, Janpath, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302015. 2. Union Of India, Through Finance Secretary, Ministry Of Finance (Department Of Revenue), Central Board Of

[2025:RJ-JP:21789-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-7024/2025] Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms.Pratyushi Mehta and Mr.Vedant Agarwal (Through VC) Mr.Siddharth Ranka with Mr.Rohan Chatter For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sandeep Pathak with Mr.Palash Gupta Mr.Anuroop Singhi with Mr.N.S.Bhati HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT Order 23/05/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J:- 1. These petitions are being decided by common order as the facts and issues involved are similar. For convenience, the facts are being taken from D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7024/2025. 2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 22.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pertaining to assessment year 2017-18. 3. The issue raised in the present petition is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in (2024) 469 ITR 46, wherein the issue with regard to the limitation and sanction has been authoritatively decided. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said judgment was not available while passing the order and the proceedings are time barred.

[2025:RJ-JP:21789-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-7024/2025] 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon decision of the Supreme Court in Seahorse Mercantile Company Private Limited Vs. Office of the Income Tax Officer & Ors. (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.25288/2023 dated 28.11.2024, argued that inspite of passing of an assessment order, the matter was sent back for enabling the assessee to raise all the objections and contentions vis-a-vis the impugned notices. 6. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, the impugned order is set aside. The matters is remitted back to the respondent No.1 – Income Tax Officer to decide the objections afresh. 7. The writ petitions are allowed. The petitioners shall be at liberty to file additional objections, if so desired, within two weeks from today. 8. Let the petitioners or through their representatives shall appear in the office of respondent No.1 on 07.07.2025 at 11.00 A.M. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Monika/44-48

More judgments on Section 148A(d)

All 544 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →