KANAK VRINDAVAN RESORTS LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
CW/9730/2021HC RajasthanRJHC02057081202106 December 2021Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was invalid. The Court reasoned that for notices issued after the amendment of the Income Tax Act, which came into force from 01.04.2021, the procedure prescribed under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act must be followed. Since the present case was similar to 'Bpip Infra Private Limited and Ors. Vs. Income Tax Officer and Ors.' and squarely covered by that decision, the writ petition was allowed. The notice under Section 148 was quashed. However, the Assessing Authority was left at liberty to initiate reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of Section 148A, after due compliance with the law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kanak Vrindavan Resorts Limited, filed a Civil Writ Petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. The petition challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The counsel for both the petitioner and the respondent (Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Jaipur) agreed that the issue was identical to one decided by the High Court in the case of 'Bpip Infra Private Limited and Ors. Vs. Income Tax Officer and Ors.' in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13297/2021. The respondent's counsel did not dispute the petitioner's contention that the present case was covered by the aforementioned decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, after the amendment effective from 01.04.2021, is valid if it does not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the notice under Section 148 was invalid because it was issued after the amendment of the Income Tax Act from 01.04.2021, and the procedure under Section 148A was not followed. They relied on the decision in 'Bpip Infra Private Limited and Ors. Vs. Income Tax Officer and Ors.' Revenue's Contention: The respondent's counsel did not dispute the facts presented by the petitioner and implicitly agreed that the case was covered by the precedent cited.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9730/2021 Kanak Vrindavan Resorts Limited, Having Its Registered Office At - 4Th Floor, D-123, Janapath, New Sanagner Road, Shyam, Nagar, Jaipur-302019, Rajasthan Through Its Director Shri Aashish Tiwari. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, C - Scheme, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Javed Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Judgment / Order 06/12/2021 1. It is contended by counsel for the parties that this question was considered by the Single Judge of the High Court in the case of “Bpip Infra Private Limited and Ors. Vs. Income Tax Officer and Ors.” in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13297/2021. It is also contended that the present case is also squarely covered by this decision. 2. Counsel for the respondent has not disputed the above facts. 3. I have considered the contentions. 4. The dispute in this question pertains to a notice which was given under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, after the amendment of the Income Tax Act which came into force from 01.04.2021. Notices should have been given only after following

(2 of 2) [CW-9730/2021] the procedure as prescribed under Section 148 (A) of the Income Tax Act. 5. In view of the fact that similar cases akin to the present one were decided by Single Judge in “Bpip Infra Private Limited and Ors. Vs. Income Tax Officer and Ors.” (Supra) and the present case is also squarely covered by this decision, I deem it proper to allow the writ petition. 6. Accordingly, this Civil Writ Petition is allowed. Re-assessment issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is quashed. However, it is left open to the Assessing Authority to initiate re-assessment proceedings in accordance with the provisions of Section 148 (A) of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021 after making due compliance as required under the law. (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J NIKHIL KR. YADAV /26

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →