SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Raj) 1075

AVNEESH JHINGAN, BHUWAN GOYAL
Shyam Sunder Khandelwal – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, Senior Counsel & Mr. Prakul Khurana, Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajat Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Aryan Singh Chauhan, Advocate, Ms. Vrinda Lakhotia, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth Ranka, Advocate with Ms. Apeksha Bapna, Advocate., Ms. Shivangi Mewal, Advocate, Mr. Rohan Chatter, Advocate Mr. Gunjan Pathak, Advocate with Ms. Kanishk Singhal, Advocate, Mr. Aditya Bohra, Advocate & Ms. Priyanshi Roongta, Advocate, Mr. Suresh Kumar Sahni, Advocate with Mr. Ram Mohan Sharma, Advocate & Mr. Srijan Tiwari, Advocate, Mr. Shankar Lal Poddar, Advocate with Mr. Jagpravesh Singh, Advocate Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Advocate Mr. Kartikeya Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Advocate, Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Advocate & Mr. Siddharth Bapna, Advocate assisted by Mr. Sarvesh Jain, Advocate, Mr. Narendra Singh Bhati, Advocate, Ms. Kriti Kalawatia, Advocate, Mr. Meyhul Mittal, Advocate Mr. Aditya Khandelwal, Advocate, Mr. Anurag Mathur, Advocate & Ms. Bhavna Laddha, Advocate for Mr. Shantanu Sharma, Advocate.

JUDGMENT :

These petitions involve common fact and question of law and are being decided by this order. For convenience, the facts are being taken from the lead case D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4677/2022.

2. Writ petition is filed challenging the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter 'the Act') and the order dated 05.03.2022 rejecting the objections filed to issuance of notice.

Facts:-

3. The brief facts are that for Assessment Year 2014- 15 the petitioner filed income tax return declaring income of Rs. 18, 76, 890/-. On 30.03.2021 notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act. The petitioner filed return on 07.01.2022 and sought the reasons for initiating the proceedings. On 18.02.2022 the reasons were supplied. The objections filed on 01.03.2022 were rejected on 05.03.2022.

Arguments Of Petitioners:-

4. Learned counsel for petitioner contented that basis of issuance of notice under Section 148 is the material seized during the search conducted on Ramesh Manihar Group (hereafter 'the Manihar Group'), the proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C of the Act. Decisions of the Karnataka High Court in Sri. Dinakara Suvarna v. Deputy Commissi

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
        whatsapp-icon Back to top