Case LawHigh Court › Nitin Dhandhia v. Assistant Commissioner...

Nitin Dhandhia v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-Iv,Jaipur, (Rajasthan).Jaipur, (Rajasthan

High Court 22 Jul 2022 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · jaipur
Parties
Nitin Dhandhia v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-Iv,Jaipur, (Rajasthan).Jaipur, (Rajasthan
Date of order
22 Jul 2022
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Nitin Dhandhia v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-Iv,Jaipur, (Rajasthan).Jaipur, (Rajasthan, the High Court (2022) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Review petition is accordingly allowed.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D. B. Civil Review Petition No. 88/2022 In D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 183/2022 Nitin Dhandhia S/o Shri Vinay Chand Dhandhia, aged about 43years, R/o 04, Govind Marg, Moti Doongari Road, Jaipur, 302004(Rajasthan). (PAN- ) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-IV,Jaipur, (Rajasthan).Jaipur, (Rajasthan). 2. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Jodhpur,(Rajasthan).(Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Review Petitioner: Mr. Suresh Kumar Sahni Advocate. For Respondent: Mr. Anuroop Singhi Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 22/07/2022 Heard. At the outset, learned counsel for the review petitionerwould submit that common order was passed in bunch of petitionson 27.01.2022 dealing with the issue in those cases where thenotice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issuedafter 31.03.2021. The observation made in para no. 2 of theorder under review that all the notices have been issued after01.04.2021, in relation to the facts of the present review petitionis factually incorrect. Therefore, there was no occasion for the review petitioner to raise any such ground on which the case couldbe considered and decided by common order. Advance copy of the review petition has also beensupplied to Mr. Anuroop Singhi, learned counsel, who representedthe respondents-Department in the cases decided as above. Taking into consideration that the issue which fell forconsideration and decided by Division Bench of this Court in thecase of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer & Another (D.B. CivilWrit Petition No. 969/2022 and other connected writ petitionsdecided on 27.01.2022), on facts related to case where notice wasissued after 01.04.2021 whereas notice was issued in the case ofpresent review petitioner on 30.03.2021 and not on 01.04.2021,order dated 27.01.2022, insofar as it relates to present reviewpetitioner is recalled and D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 183/2022 isrestored to its original number for being decided on its ownmerits. Review petition is accordingly allowed. (SAMEER JAIN),J(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J MANOJ NARWANI /3.
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Defend a reassessment (Sec 148) 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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan