VISHAL MOHTA HUF vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal held that the impugned notice dated March 31, 2021, and all subsequent proceedings, including the final assessment order, were not sustainable in law and were liable to be quashed. The reasoning was based on the admitted fact that the case clearly fell under the newly amended provisions relating to Section 147 proceedings. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had issued the notice in violation of these amended provisions. The decision was also covered by this Court's order in the case of Bagaria Properties reported in (2022) 134 Taxman.Com 196 (Calcutta). The quashing of the notice and proceedings would not debar the Assessing Officer from issuing a fresh notice in accordance with law. The writ petition was entertained subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee due to the delay in filing the petition without explanation.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Vishal Mohta HUF, challenged a notice dated March 31, 2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2013-2014, and all subsequent proceedings. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued on April 1, 2021, and that the case fell under the newly amended provisions of Section 147. Consequently, the Assessing Officer had a mandatory obligation to issue a notice under Section 148A before issuing the Section 148 notice, which was not done. The Assessing Officer had also passed a final assessment order. The writ petition was filed on April 7, 2022, approximately nine months after receiving the notice, without explanation for the delay.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the notice dated March 31, 2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2013-2014, is sustainable in law, considering the newly amended provisions relating to Section 147 of the Act. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the notice was issued in violation of the newly amended provisions of Section 147, specifically that the Assessing Officer failed to issue a mandatory notice under Section 148A before issuing the Section 148 notice. The petitioner relied on the case of Bagaria Properties reported in (2022) 134 Taxman.Com 196 (Calcutta). Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
12.4.2022 ks WPA 6320 of 2022 sl. 42 Vishal Mohta HUF Vs Union of India & Ors. Mr. Pranit Bag, Mr. Zubeen Pandey … For the Petitioner. Mr. Smarajit Roy Chowdhury … For the UOI. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned notice dated 31st March, 2021, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to assessment year 2013-2014 and all subsequent proceedings on the basis of the impugned notice on the ground that the same was issued on 1st of April, 2021 on the basis of record and it appears from record that in fact it was issued on 1st of April, 2021, on the ground hat the case clearly falls within the ambit of newly amended provision relating to 147 of the Income Tax Act proceedings and it was the mandatory obligation on the part of the Assessing Officer to issue notice under Section 148A of the Act before issuing the impugned notice which the Assessing Officer has not done in this case and even has passed the final assessment order. Considering the submission of the parties I am of the view that in view of the admitted fact that this case
2 clearly falls under the newly amended provisions relating to 147 proceedings of the Act and the Assessing Officer concerned has issued the impugned notice in violation of the aforesaid newly amended provisions and further this case is covered by an order of this Court in the case of Bagaria Properties reported in (2022) 134 Taxman.Com 196(Calcutta) and accordingly, the impugned notice dated 31st March, 2021 and all further proceedings including final assessment order on the basis of impugned notice are not sustainable in law and the same are quashed. However, quashing of the impugned notice and proceedings therein will not debar the Assessing Officer concerned to issue any fresh notice in future in accordance with law. This writ petition is being entertained subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee since the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been issued on 31st March, 2021 as appears from record and this writ petition has been filed on 7th April, 2022, that is, almost after nine months from receipt of the impugned notice, without any explanation for such delay in filing this writ petition. Such cost has to be paid by the petitioner to the High Court Legal Services Committee within seven days from date, which is to be
3 utilized for the welfare of street children. Payment of receipt is to be produced before this Court. List this matter as “To be Mentioned” on 25th April, 2022 for compliance. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. ( Md. Nizamuddin, J. )
More judgments on Section 148
- Bha Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs ACIT, Central Circle- 29, New DelhiITA 5208/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed6 Nov 2026AY 2015-16
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Subrat Kumar Samal vs. The Commissioner, CGST, Cx And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Laxmipriya Biswal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax,BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Shree Jagannath Engineering,Angul vs. Assistant Commissioner, Angul Division ,AngulOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Archana Agro, Nayagarh vs. The Chief Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, CuttackOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Shree Jagannath Associates, Angul vs. The Chief Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, CuttackOrissa · 3 Nov 2026