CHANDRA PRAKASH AGROYA S/O LATE SHRI BANSILAL AGROYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/357/2020HC RajasthanRJHC02001147202005 July 2024Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, and the consequent assessment order for Assessment Year 2012-13. The Court's decision was based on the premise that the facts of the present case were identical to those in Siddharth Totuka vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (DBCWP No.13424/2021), which had been decided on April 18, 2024. This prior decision, in turn, followed the ruling of the Court in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18363/2019) and connected petitions. The ratio decidendi is that if a case presents the same factual matrix as a precedent already decided by the same court, the outcome should be consistent. The operative direction was to quash the impugned notice and assessment order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ranjeet Birani, filed a writ petition seeking to quash a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent assessment order for Assessment Year 2012-13. The respondent is the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (1), Jaipur. The petitioner's counsel stated that the facts of this case are identical to those in DBCWP No.13424/2021 (Siddharth Totuka vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax), which was decided on April 18, 2024. This prior decision, in turn, followed the ruling in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and connected petitions. The judgment does not specify the amount in dispute or provide further procedural history beyond the filing of the writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, and the consequent assessment order for Assessment Year 2012-13 are liable to be quashed. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the facts of the present case are identical to those in Siddharth Totuka vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (DBCWP No.13424/2021), which was allowed by this Court. They also relied on the decision in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18363/2019) and connected petitions. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the revenue in this particular case. However, it notes that the parties were 'at ad idem' (in agreement) that the facts were similar to the cited precedent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2024:RJ-JP:28110-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2360/2020 Ranjeet Birani S/o Shri Ratan Lal, Aged About 58 Years, B-89, Shubham, Ganesh Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (1), New Central Revenue Building, Janpath, Jaipur. ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 357/2020 Chandra Prakash Agroya S/o Late Shri Bansilal Agroya, Aged About 70 Years, D-46/b, Subhash Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (2), New Central Revenue Building, Janpath, Jaipur. ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2760/2020 Ashok Kumar Dusad S/o Shri Ram Sharan Dusad, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of K-08, Malviya Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-04, New Central Revenue Building, Janpath, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dileep Shivpuri with Mr. Utkarsh Shara For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna Mr. Sarvesh Jain Ms. Kriti Kalawatia Mr. Meyhul Mittal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

[2024:RJ-JP:28110-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-2360/2020] Order 05/07/2024 This petition is filed seeking quashing of notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2012-13 and the assessment order. Learned counsel for the parties are at ad idem that the facts of the present case are similar to that of DBCWP No.13424/2021 (Siddharth Totuka vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) decided on 18.04.2024 wherein, the writ petition was allowed in terms of the decision of this Court passed in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18363/2019) and connected petitions. The petitions are disposed of in terms of the decision of this Court dated 18.04.2024 passed in the case of Siddharth Totuka (supra). (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Simple Kumawat /29-31

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →