Mohammed Shakil v. Income Tax Officer, Ward Tonk, Malpura Gate, Kala Baba,Tonk, Rajasthan
High Court
06 Dec 2021 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · jaipur
Parties
Mohammed Shakil v. Income Tax Officer, Ward Tonk, Malpura Gate, Kala Baba,Tonk, Rajasthan
Date of order
06 Dec 2021
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Mohammed Shakil v. Income Tax Officer, Ward Tonk, Malpura Gate, Kala Baba,Tonk, Rajasthan, the High Court (2021) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 6.Accordingly, this Civil Writ 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
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10000/2021
Mohammed Shakil S/o Mohammed Hanif, 04, Purani Tonk,Pathan Ka Chowk Tonk 304001 Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Income Tax Officer, Ward Tonk, Malpura Gate, Kala Baba,Tonk, Rajasthan-304001Tonk, Rajasthan-304001
2. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ncr Building, BhagwanDass Road, C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Statue Circle, Jaipur-302005Dass Road, C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Statue Circle, Jaipur-302005
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Javed KhanFor Respondent(s): Mr. Nikhil Simlote with Mr. Rao Raj forMr. R.B. Mathur For Respondent(s): Mr. Nikhil Simlote with Mr. Rao Raj forMr. R.B. Mathur
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
06/12/2021
Judgment / Order
1.It is contended by counsel for the parties that this questionwas considered by the Single Judge of the High Court in the caseof “Bpip Infra Private Limited and Ors. Vs. Income TaxOfficer and Ors.” in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13297/2021. It isalso contended that the present case is also squarely covered bythis decision.
2.Counsel for the respondent has not disputed the above facts.3.I have considered the contentions.3.I have considered the contentions.
4.The dispute in this question pertains to a notice which wasgiven under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, after theamendment of the Income Tax Act which came into force from01.04.2021. Notices should have been given only after following
the procedure as prescribed under Section 148 (A) of the IncomeTax Act.
5.In view of the fact that similar cases akin to the present onewere decided by Single Judge in “Bpip Infra Private Limitedand Ors. Vs. Income Tax Officer and Ors.” (Supra) and thepresent case is also squarely covered by this decision, I deem itproper to allow the writ petition.
6.Accordingly, this Civil Writ Petition is allowed. Re-assessmentissued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act isquashed.However, it is left open to the Assessing Authority toinitiate re-assessment proceedings in accordance with theprovisions of Section 148 (A) of the Act as amended by theFinance Act, 2021 after making due compliance as required underthe law.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
NIKHIL KR. YADAV /99
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.