Case Law › High Court › Abha Jain v. The Assistant Director Of I...

Abha Jain v. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax (Inv.)

High Court 26 Aug 2025 In favour of: Revenue

Forum / Bench

High Court · jaipur

Parties

Date of order

26 Aug 2025

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In Abha Jain v. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax (Inv.), the High Court (2025) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: 3.We direct respondent No.2 to treat this petition itself as anapplication for release of seized items.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

[2025:RJ-JP:33895-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5414/2025 Abha Jain W/o Shri Raj Kumar Jain, Aged About 68 Years, R/o59, Geej Garh Vihar, Hawa Sadak Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302006,India. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax (Inv.)-1, NewCentral Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur,Rajasthan- 302005.Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur,Rajasthan- 302005. 2. Deputy Commission Of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, 4ThFloor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle,Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302005.Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle,Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302005. ----Respondents For Petitioner For Respondents : Mr. Mahendra Gargieya with Mr. Hemang Gargieya & Mr. Tarak Ahuja Mr. Hemang Gargieya & Mr. Tarak Ahuja : Mr. Siddharth Bapna HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 26/08/2025 Order 1.A technical objection is the only problem that respondentsraised i.e. application dated 14[th] February 2025 has been given toAssessing Officer, DCIT, Circle-4, whereas it should have beengiven to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Circle-4.The only difference is that the word “Central” is missing. 2.A diligent officer, in our view, would have forwarded it to thetable of “Central” Circle-4. 3.We direct respondent No.2 to treat this petition itself as anapplication for release of seized items. Application shall be disposed within four weeks of this order being uploaded and non-receipt of a copy of this order shall be no excuse for not disposingthe application. 4.Mr. Bapna, counsel for respondents states that he shallinform the concerned officer. 5.Before passing order, a personal hearing shall be given,notice whereof shall be communicated at least five working daysin advance. 6.Petition disposed. 7.We clarify we have not made any observation on merits ofthe matter.the matter. (MANEESH SHARMA),J(K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N.GANDHI/RAJAT/20

Facing a similar income-tax issue?

Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.

✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 Ask our CA

This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.

Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.