Case LawHigh Court › Wpc/6135/2024 Of M/S Vinay Kumar Singh (...

Wpc/6135/2024 Of M/S Vinay Kumar Singh (Huf) v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1), Bokaro

High Court 10 Dec 2024 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · jhar_pg
Parties
Wpc/6135/2024 Of M/S Vinay Kumar Singh (Huf) v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1), Bokaro
Date of order
10 Dec 2024
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Wpc/6135/2024 Of M/S Vinay Kumar Singh (Huf) v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1), Bokaro, the High Court (2024) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: We therefore, do not made any merit in the writ petition it is accordingly dismissed.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHIW.P.(T) No. 6135 of 2024 ----- M/s Vinay Kumar Singh (HUF) represented by its Karta Shri Vinay Kumar Singh, aged about 58 years, son of late Shiv Pratap Singh, resident of Plot No. 352, Co-operative Colony, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S. B S City, District-Bokaro-827001, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1), Bokaro, having its office at Qr. No. 796, Sector I/C, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. Sector-1, P.S.-B.S.City, District-Bokaro-827001, Jharkhand. … … Respondent ------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhanu Giri, Adv For the Respondent : Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Sr. S.C. ------ 4/10.12.2024 In this writ petition the petitioner is questioning issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide Annexure-1 dated 06.03.2024 on the ground that the assessing officer could not have done so without issuing prior notice under Section 148 A of the said act. 2. Counsel for the respondent has pointed out that as per proviso (C) to Section 148 A there is no necessity to issue prior notice, in the circumstances arising in the instant case and there is no illegality committed by the Assessing Officer in issuing the said notice. 3. We agree with the contention of the counsel for the respondent that prior notice under section 148 A is not necessary in the situation referred to in proviso (C) to section 148 A which is invoked in the instant case. 4. Though, counsel for the petitioner place reliance on certain instructions issued on 22.08.2022 by the Department, we are of the view that the said instruction cannot prevail over the statute and the same cannot be interpreted to compel the department to issue a notice under section 148 A in a situation covered by the proviso (C) to section 148 A referred to above. 5. We therefore, do not made any merit in the writ petition it is accordingly dismissed. No Cost. (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) Fahim/Amardeep
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