Shyam Sunder Khandelwal v. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Through Chairperson,Type-7, Bungalow

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12312/2022 Shyam Sunder Khandelwal S/o Late Damodar Lal Khandelwal,Aged About 74 Years, R/o R-1, Tilak Marg. C-Scheme, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central Circle - 4, Room No. 416, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, LIC Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan -302005Central Circle - 4, Room No. 416, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, LIC Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan -302005 2. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Through Chairperson,Type-7, Bungalow No. 75, New Moti Bagh, New Delhi-110021Type-7, Bungalow No. 75, New Moti Bagh, New Delhi-110021 ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12313/2022 Shyam Sunder Khandelwal S/o Late Damodar Lal Khandelwal,Aged About 74 Years, R/o R-1, Tilak Marg. C-Scheme, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central Circle - 4, Room No. 416, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005Central Circle - 4, Room No. 416, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005 2. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Through Chairperson,Type-7, Bungalow No. 75, New Moti Bagh, New Delhi-110021Type-7, Bungalow No. 75, New Moti Bagh, New Delhi-110021 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Sharma, Adv. withMr. Shubhendra Singh, Adv.Mr. Shubhendra Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna, Adv. with Mr. Sarvesh Jain, Adv. & Mr. Meyhul Mittal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT 17/09/2025 1.Issue notice to the respondents. 2.Mr. Siddharth Bapna accepts notice on behalf of respondents.3.Service is complete.3.Service is complete. 4.The issue raised in the present writ petitions is no more res integra as the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a bunch of cases, Shyam Sunder Khandelwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18363/2019 has decided the issue on 19.03.2024 wherein the following order was passed:-“40. In view of above discussion the noticesissued under Section 148 and the impugnedorders are quashed. However, the respondentsshall be at liberty to proceed against thepetitioners in accordance with law.41.The first ground of challenge to initiationof proceedings under Section 148 is beingaccepted and there is no need to dilate uponother grounds raised for challenging the noticeissued under Section 148 of the Act.42.In would be appropriate to mention thatduring the pendency of the writ petitions therewas interim protection in favour of thepetitioners.”“40. In view of above discussion the noticesissued under Section 148 and the impugnedorders are quashed. However, the respondentsshall be at liberty to proceed against thepetitioners in accordance with law.41.The first ground of challenge to initiationof proceedings under Section 148 is beingaccepted and there is no need to dilate uponother grounds raised for challenging the noticeissued under Section 148 of the Act.42.In would be appropriate to mention thatduring the pendency of the writ petitions therewas interim protection in favour of thepetitioners.” 5.In the present case too, the notice under Section 148 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred as ‘Act of 1961’) hasbeen challenged on the ground that the procedure adopted waserroneous and at best the respondents could have initiatedproceedings under Section 153(c) of Act of 1961, however,learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in addition to theaforesaid terms, that even under Section 153(c) of Act of 1961the notice cannot be issued in the present case as it would be hitby latches and learned counsel for the petitioner further submitsthat in terms of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 5.In the present case too, the notice under Section 148 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred as ‘Act of 1961’) hasbeen challenged on the ground that the procedure adopted waserroneous and at best the respondents could have initiatedproceedings under Section 153(c) of Act of 1961, however,learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in addition to theaforesaid terms, that even under Section 153(c) of Act of 1961the notice cannot be issued in the present case as it would be hitby latches and learned counsel for the petitioner further submitsthat in terms of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal: SC 2024 INSC 754and interpretation of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation andAmendment of Certain Provisions) Act, the issue could not havebeen revived. 6.We have considered the contentions. 7.We find that the primary issue raised in the present petitionsrelating to the notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, thesubsequent proceedings have not been taken up by the authorityand if at all as and when if the respondents choose to take up theproceedings against the petitioner under Section 153(c) of the Actof 1961, the subsequent arguments which the learned counselseeks to advance would have no application.Accordingly, we setaside and quash the notice dated 30.07.2022 under Section 148 ofthe Act of 1961 in terms of judgment passed in Shyam SunderKhandelwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (supra). 8.Liberty granted in the judgment of Shyam SunderKhandelwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(supra) would be available to the Department only if it is allowedin terms of law. 9.Keeping in view the above, the present civil writ petitions areallowed. 10.Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J HEENA/MAHIMA/78-79