Manjari Mittal v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Kota Cr Building, Rawat
High Court
23 Mar 2022 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · jaipur
Parties
Manjari Mittal v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Kota Cr Building, Rawat
Date of order
23 Mar 2022
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Manjari Mittal v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Kota Cr Building, Rawat, the High Court (2022) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In view of the above statement made by learned counsel forthe petitioner, the impugned notice issued in the present case, for the reasons stated in the order dated 27.01.2022 passed in the aforesaidcases, is also quashed and set aside and the petition is allowed.
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
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4368/2022
Manjari Mittal, D/o Shri Deepak Gupta, Aged About 40 Years, R/o893, Shastri Nagar, Kota.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Kota CR Building, Rawat
Bhata Road, Kota.
2. Union of India, through Finance Secretary, Ministry Of
Finance (Department Of Revenue), Central Board Of
Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi 110002
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra forMr. Gunjan PathakFor Respondent(s): Mr. Nikhil Simlote
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
23/03/2022
Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset wouldsubmit that the issue involved in this petition is no longer res integra asit has been put to an end by Division Bench of this Court in the decisionrendered on 27.01.2022 in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, 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 andquashed.
In view of the above statement made by learned counsel forthe petitioner, the impugned notice issued in the present case, for the
reasons stated in the order dated 27.01.2022 passed in the aforesaidcases, is also quashed and set aside and the petition is allowed.
(SAMEER JAIN),J(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ
JKP/68
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.
EaseValue