Pramod Goyal v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 4 Jaipur,Income Tax, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road,Jaipur, Rajasthan

[2025:RJ-JP:35838-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10430/2021 Pramod Goyal S/o Shri Tulsa Das Shrinivas, Aged About 58Years, R/o A-2, Nandanam Apartment-I, B2 First Floor, TilakMarg, C Scheme, Jaipur 302005 ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 4 Jaipur,Income Tax, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road,Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005 ----Respondent For Petitioner For Respondent : Mr. Rajat Sharma with Mr. Saksham Pandey on behalf of Mr. Saksham Pandey on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, Senior Advocate : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Sarvesh Jain, Mr. Meyhul Mittal & Mr. Rahul KumarMr. Rahul Kumar HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 08/09/2025 Order 1.Mr. Rajat Sharma states that the issue in this matter issquarely covered by a judgment of this Court in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax[1]. 2.Mr. Rajat Sharma submitted that after a search wasconducted, the Assessing Officer on the basis of material seizedduring the search, issued a notice under Section 148 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) on the assessee. TheCourt held that such a notice could not have been issued andAssessing Officer ought to have issued a notice under Section153C of the Act. 3.We would respectfully agree with the findings in ShyamSunder Khandelwal (supra). 4.Mr. Bapna says that the Revenue has challenged the order in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal (supra) by way of SLP and noticehas been issued after condoning delay. Mr. Bapna says, therefore,this matter be adjourned sine die, until the SLP is decided. 5.We do not wish to follow the course suggested by Mr. Bapnabecause; (a) we agree with the findings of our Co-ordinate Benchin Shyam Sunder Khandelwal (supra); and (b) if at all theRevenue succeeds in the Apex Court, certainly Revenue canrequest the Apex Court for revival of the notice. 6.Accordingly, impugned notice dated 24[th] March 2020 ishereby quashed and set aside. 7.Petition disposed. 8.We clarify that in case Revenue succeeds in the Apex Court in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal (supra), it may take such steps,as advised, in accordance with law. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N.GANDHI/RAJAT/8