Disb. Bench quashed a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relying on the earlier decision in Sudesh Taneja vs. ITO held by this Court, and allowed the writ petition.
The impugned notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is quashed and set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5624/2022
Hari Prasad Vijay, (A.y. 2017-18) S/o Late Shri Ramji Lal Vijay, Aged About 57 Years, R/o B-267, Janta Colony, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302004.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vedant Agarwal Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi Advocate.
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
25/04/2022
Mr. Anuroop Singh, learned counsel enters appearance on behalf of the respondents.
Advance copy of the petition has been supplied to learned counsel for the respondents.
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, would submit that till date, final assessment order has not 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,
(2 of 2)
[CW-5624/2022]
Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions) where the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been found to 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.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ
Sanjay Kumawat-9
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is valid and impermissible in law.
Whether the petition is maintainable in view of the earlier judgment in Sudesh Taneja vs. ITO.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr.Relied on¶16
Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Hari Prasad Vijay
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Union Of India
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
Sameer Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
