SIGNATURE INFRASTRUCTURES vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (2) JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
CW/5527/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02027309202208 April 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's decision was based on the statement made by the petitioner's counsel that no assessment order had been passed and on the precedent set by the Division Bench in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-l(3) & Anr. The Court found the notices to be invalid and impermissible in law for the reasons stated in the Sudesh Taneja judgment. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if notices under Section 148 are found to be invalid based on a High Court precedent, they should be quashed, and the writ petition allowed, especially when no assessment order has been passed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Signature Infrastructures, a registered partnership firm represented by its proprietor Sh. Ajay Yadav, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jaipur, and the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The petitioner challenged notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's counsel stated that no assessment order had yet been passed by the Assessing Authority. The core of the dispute revolved around the validity of these notices.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are invalid and impermissible in law? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issue of the validity of notices under Section 148 has been decided by a Division Bench of the High Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-l(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 96912022 and batch of petitions) decided on 27.01.2022, where such notices were found to be invalid and quashed. Revenue's contention: No specific contention was recorded for the revenue in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN 1 BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 552712022 Signature< Infrastructures, A Registered Partnership Firm, Represented Herein Through Its Proprietor Sh. Ajay Yadav S/o Late Sh. Shriram Yadav, Aged About 59 Years, R/o 32Bc, Keshav Nagar, Civil Lines, Hawa Sadak, Jaipur. Versus 1, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (2) Jaipur, Having Address At New Central Revenwe,Buil,ding, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajastfaah .'A LA bxD J*&If?zP ., g., b * -kF 2. "-.I" ..a?-,F Central B'oad .Of Direct Taxes, Mln'lstryqOt Finance, North .Block,@J~,w Delhi- 110011 Through Its GhaiFrnan. * %, 5, k".t>P 2 ---"Respondents 1s -Q *. # -. .dL% .d>a-r # ' " i For peti?her(s) : Mr. Ashish Sharma ' F*'B For Respondent(s) : Mc~&nu:r,oop s +bk~sbLrrLrr-4- Singhi with Mr. N.S. Bhati a &/k4 .&93. ,A HON'BLE THE ACTING C MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA 08/04/2022 Mr. Anuroo appearance on behalf of the responde Advance copy o supplied to learned counsel for the respon At the outset, le-a n&ycg.insel or the petitioner upon &44el.s96:r;,lqh ' instructions would submit that till date no order of assessment boas been passed by the Assessing Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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-l(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 96912022 and batch of petitions) where the notices issued under Section 148 of the

(2 of 2) [CW-5527/2022] Income  ax Act, 1961 have been found t o 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.

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →