Ravi Surya Agro Resorts Llp, E-172A, Uttam Tower, Rameshmarg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Through Authorised Signatory Ravindrapratap Singh Parihar v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 3Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle,Jaipur.jaipur, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Ci

[2025:RJ-JP:35191-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13524/2021 Ravi Surya Agro Resorts Llp, E-172A, Uttam Tower, RameshMarg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Through Authorised Signatory RavindraPratap Singh Parihar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 3Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle,Jaipur.Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle,Jaipur. 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur,New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur.New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Gunjan Pathak with Ms. Ishita RawatFor Respondents: Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Sarvesh Jain &Mr. Meyhul Miittal HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 03/09/2025 Order 1.Petitioner is challenging a notice dated 30[th] September 2021,issued under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (forshort ‘the Act’), whereby petitioner was called upon to submitexplanation as to why petitioner’s books of accounts forAssessment Years 2014-15 to 2020-21 may not be referred tospecial audit as per provisions of Section 142(2A) of the Act.Various grounds have been raised, one of which is that notice hasbeen issued mechanically without application of mind becausepetitioner itself was incorporated only in the year 2017. Copy of the Company Master Data, which is annexed to the petition, statesthe date of incorporation as 26[th] July 2017. 2.In the reply to the petition, there is no denial to the fact thatpetitioner was incorporated in the year 2017. 3.Mr. Gunjan Pathak, counsel for petitioner submitted thattherefore, notice has been issued without application of mind andthe question of accounts being complex for Assessment Year2014-2015 upto the date of incorporation will not arise becausethere are no accounts. 4.Mr. Pathak submitted that since notice itself has been issuedwithout application of mind, the entire foundation of respondents’case will collapse and hence, the notice has to be quashed and setaside. 5.Mr. Siddharth Bapna, counsel for respondents submits thatthis notice came to be issued pursuant to a search which wasconducted in the year 2019 in the premises of petitioner and itsDirectors. Mr. Bapna states that pursuant to Section 153A and153C of the Act, department is entitled to reassess for sixassessment years immediately preceding the assessment yearrelevant to the previous year in which search is conducted. 6.It is true that under Section 153A/153C of the Act,department could look into six assessment years prior to the yearof search, but that does not mean that they will do audit orreassess the accounts for years upto 2014-2015 also. As thecompany itself was not in existence, there can be no accounts forthose years. 7.Therefore, as the notice dated 30[th] September 2021 itselfhas been issued without application of mind, in our view, thenotice cannot stand. The notice is quashed and set aside. 8.Petition disposed. Pending application, if any, also standsdisposed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ KAMLESH KUMAR-RAHUL/8