Hitendra Sharma Son Of Shri Vishnu Sharma v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur
High Court
24 Jan 2025 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · jaipur
Parties
Hitendra Sharma Son Of Shri Vishnu Sharma v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur
Date of order
24 Jan 2025
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Hitendra Sharma Son Of Shri Vishnu Sharma v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur, the High Court (2025) decided the matter.
Decision: 5.In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
[2025:RJ-JP:3622-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7575/2022
Hitendra Sharma Son Of Shri Vishnu Sharma, Aged About 36Years, Resident Of D-192, Moti Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur 302015
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur Having Its Address At NewCentral Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur 302005
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka with Ms. Satwika JhaMs. Satwika Jha
For Respondent(s): Mr. Anuroop Singhi with Mr. N.S. Bhati and Mr. N.S. Bhati and
Mr. Aditya Khandelwal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA
24/01/2025
Order
1.This petition is filed seeking quashing of notice dated19.03.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act,1960 (for brevity ‘the Act’), order dated 29.03.2022 passed underSection 148A(d) of the Act rejecting the objections filed and noticedated 30.03.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act forassessment year 2015-2016.
2.This petition is pending since 2022 and no stay was grantedduring pendency of the petition.
3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the limitationfor framing re-assessment for the assessment year 2015-2016has already been expired on 31.03.2023 and no order has beencommunicated to the petitioner as on date.
4.Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in case there-assessment order has already been passed, the same would becommunicated to the petitioner within four weeks and otherwise thedepartment shall proceed in accordance with law.
5.In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. Needless tosay the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail remedies inaccordance with law for surviving grievance, if any.
(SHUBHA MEHTA),J
(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J
RIYA/MR/24
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.