M And M Gems v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6045/2022 M and M Gems, Having Its Address At Plot No. 10, Purandar Ji KaBagh, Moti Dungri Road, Jaipur 302004 Through Its Partner ShriMehul Shah ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Jaipur Having Its Address At NewCentral Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur 302005 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka with Ms. Apeksha Bapna & Mr. Rohan ChatterFor Respondent(s): Mr. Sandeep Pathak HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Order 04/11/2024 -AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (Oral): 1.This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated31.03.2022 passed under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for short the ‘Act’). 2.The brief facts are that the assesee firm filed returnspertaining to assessment year 2018-19. A notice dated11.03.2022 was served for explaining the transactions in the bankaccount of the petitioner maintained in the Indusind Bank. Thepetitioner supplied the information and documents on 14.03.2022.Thereafter, a notice dated 17.03.2022 was issued under Section148A (b) of the Act. The petitioner responded to the notice byfiling a reply on 23.03.2022. On passing of the impugned order,the present petition has been filed. 3.The grievance raised is that the impugned order is non-speaking and is in violation of Section 148(A) of the Act and theguidelines dated 01.08.2022 issued by the department. 4.The issue involved in the petition is that without consideringthe reply, the non-speaking impugned order has been passed. 5.Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of this Court in R.K. Buildcreations Private Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer reported in [{2024} 462 ITR 478 (Raj)] to submitthat the impugned order is passed in violation of provision ofSection 148A of the Act and the guidelines. 6.Learned counsel for the respondents albeit defends theimpugned order is not able to distinguish the present case fromthe decision cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7.From the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident thatreply filed by the petitioner was brushed aside by stating that thereply filed was not satisfactory. 8.The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set asideand the matter is remitted back to the respondent to proceed withthe notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act in accordance withlaw. (UMA SHANKER VYAS), J (AVNEESH JHINGAN), J GAURAV SHARMA/HS/71 Reportable:- Yes