KISHAN LAL PRAJAPATI SON OF SHRI GOPI RAM PRAJAPATI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) JAIPUR

CW/1154/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Kishan Lal Prajapati, the petitioner, who challenged the validity of notices and orders issued under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner argued that the notices were issued after the expiration of the statutory limitation period, referencing a Supreme Court decision in Union of India & ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal, which supported the petitioner's claim. The respondents did not provide a satisfactory distinction from the cited Supreme Court case. Consequently, the High Court of Rajasthan quashed the notices and orders, ruling them as time-barred.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 746863 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal, Union of India & ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: N S BHATI; ADITYA KHANDELWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SIDDHARTH RANKA; ROHAN CHATTER; APEKSHA BAPNA
• Keywords: Notice under section 148; Quashing of order; Re-assessment; Time barred
• Section: 147; 148; 148A(b); 148A(d)

Judgement Text

"[2025:RJ-JP:7718-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1154/2025 Kishan Lal Prajapati Son Of Shri Gopi Ram Prajapati, Resident Of Plot No. 3, Mahadev Nagar, 22 Godam, Nandpuri, Jaipur-302021 ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1) Jaipur, Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur-302005 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka, Adv. with Mr. Rohan Chatter, Adv. & Ms. Apeksha Bapna, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Bhati, Adv. with Mr. Aditya Khandelwal, Adv. for Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 20/02/2025 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 21.05.2023 passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and order dated 30.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act. Further prayer is for quashing of notice dated 30.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner had filed returns for assessment year 2015-16 declaring income of Rs. 10,47,920/-. On 26.06.2021 notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act. The issue as to whether after Finance Act, 2021, the notice could have been issued under unamended Section 148 of the Act without following the procedure laid down under Section 148A of the Act was subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal reported in 2023(1)SCC 617. It was [2025:RJ-JP:7718-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-1154/2025] directed that notices issued under Section 148 of the Act shall be deemed to be under Section 148A (b) and Assessing Officer shall within thirty days provide information and material to assessee. The direction of the supreme court were complied vide notice dated 29.05.2022. The objections filed by the petitioner were rejected on 30.07.2022 and the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in (2024) 469 ITR 46.It is argued that the limitation for assessment year 2015-16 expired on 31.03.2022. Contention is that concession for dropping proceeding for assessment year 2015-16 was given by respondent before the supreme court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). Argument is that for assessment year 2015-16 the limitation expired on 31.03.2022 whereas the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 30.07.2022. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there are other issues raised in this petition but is not in a position to distinguish the present case from the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). 5. The contention that there are other issues raised in this petition need not be addressed as the petition deserves acceptance on the single issue that the re-assessment for assessment year 2015-16 has been rendered time barred and impugned notices are liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 6. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Mohita/Chandan/44 "