SHANTI LAL KHINCHI SON OF SHRI BHURA RAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/6908/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02036298202227 May 2025Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MUKESH RAJPUROHIT (V. J.)2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The reasoning was that the Assessing Officer, while passing the order, relied on two entries of Rs. 13 Lakh and Rs. 5 Lakh which were not part of the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148A(b). The respondent's counsel conceded that no notice was issued for these specific entries. Therefore, the principle of natural justice was violated as the assessee was not given an opportunity to explain these additional amounts. The Tribunal quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 25.03.2022. The department was granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner if permissible by law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, legal heirs of Shanti Lal Khinchi, are challenging an order dated 25.03.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For assessment year 2015-16, no return was filed by the deceased assessee, despite selling immovable property and depositing the sale consideration in a bank account. A notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on 14.03.2022. The petitioner responded on 24.03.2022, objecting that an entry of Rs. 22 Lakh was considered twice, and after its correction, the alleged escaped income would be less than Rs. 50 Lakh, making the notice time-barred. The Assessing Officer acknowledged the double entry of Rs. 22 Lakh but, in the order under Section 148A(d), relied on other entries of Rs. 13 Lakh and Rs. 5 Lakh, which were not included in the original notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid when it relies on income entries (Rs. 13 Lakh and Rs. 5 Lakh) that were not part of the notice issued under Section 148A(b)? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148A). Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer accepted the double entry of Rs. 22 Lakh. However, the impugned order under Section 148A(d) relied on other entries of Rs. 13 Lakh and Rs. 5 Lakh, which were not mentioned in the notice issued under Section 148A(b). This vitiates the order. Revenue's contentions: The respondent's counsel, on instructions and after reviewing the record, fairly submitted that no notice was issued to the petitioner concerning the entries of Rs. 13 Lakh and Rs. 5 Lakh that were relied upon in the impugned order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JP:22263-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6908/2022 1. Shanti Lal Khinchi Son Of Shri Bhura Ram, Aged About 82 Years, Resident Of 214-A, Ward No. 50, Mandi Khatikan, Delhi Road, Jati Ji Ki Baghichi, Jaipur 302001 Through Legal Heirs 2. Rajkumar Khinchi Son Of Late Shanti Lal Khinchi, Resident Of 214-A, Ward No. 50, Mandi Khatikan, Delhi Road, Jati Ji Ki Baghichi, Jaipur 302001 3. Manju Daughter Of Late Shanti Lal Khinchi, Resident Of 214-A, Ward No. 50, Mandi Khatikan, Delhi Road, Jati Ji Ki Baghichi, Jaipur 302001 4. Goverdhan Khinchi Son Of Late Shanti Lal Khinchi, Resident Of 214-A, Ward No. 50, Mandi Khatikan, Delhi Road, Jati Ji Ki Baghichi, Jaipur 302001 5. Govind Khinchi Son Of Late Shanti Lal Khinchi, Resident Of 214-A, Ward No. 50, Mandi Khatikan, Delhi Road, Jati Ji Ki Baghichi, Jaipur 302001 6. Mohan Lal Khinchi Son Of Late Shanti Lal Khinchi, Resident Of 214-A, Ward No. 50, Mandi Khatikan, Delhi Road, Jati Ji Ki Baghichi, Jaipur 302001 ----Petitioners Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur 302005 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Siddharth Ranka, Adv. with Ms.Apeksha Bapna, Adv. & Mr. Rohan Chatter For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sandeep Pathak, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT Order 27/05/2025 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 25.03.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The relevant facts are that for assessment year 2015-16 no return was filed by the petitioner. However, he had sold immovable

[2025:RJ-JP:22263-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-6908/2022] property and sale consideration of which was deposited in the bank account. Notice dated 14.03.2022 was issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The petitioner responded to the notice on 24.03.2022 raising an objection that entry of Rs.22 Lakh has been considered twice, on deducting the said amount the alleged escapement is less than Rs.50 Lakh and the notice is time barred. 3. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) accepted that there was a double entry of Rs.22 Lakh. However, while passing the order under Section 148A(d) the other two entries of Rs.13 Lakh and Rs.5 Lakh which were not part of the notice issued under Section 148A(b) were relied upon and the impugned order was passed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent on instruction and after going through the record fairly submits that there was no notice issued to the petitioner for the entries now relied upon of Rs.13 Lakh and Rs.5 Lakh. 5. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 25.03.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) is quashed and set aside. 6. The writ petition is allowed. 7. The department shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner if so provided in law. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT), J (AVNEESH JHINGAN), J Himanshu Soni/112

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →