[2025:RJ-JP:22263-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6908/2022 1. Shanti Lal Khinchi Son Of Shri Bhura Ram, Aged About 82 Years, Resident Of 214-A, Ward No. 50, Mandi Khatikan, Delhi Road, Jati Ji Ki Baghichi, Jaipur 302001 Through Legal Heirs 2. Rajkumar Khinchi Son Of Late Shanti Lal Khinchi, Resident Of 214-A, Ward No. 50, Mandi Khatikan, Delhi Road, Jati Ji Ki Baghichi, Jaipur 302001 3. Manju Daughter Of Late Shanti Lal Khinchi, Resident Of 214-A, Ward No. 50, Mandi Khatikan, Delhi Road, Jati Ji Ki Baghichi, Jaipur 302001 4. Goverdhan Khinchi Son Of Late Shanti Lal Khinchi, Resident Of 214-A, Ward No. 50, Mandi Khatikan, Delhi Road, Jati Ji Ki Baghichi, Jaipur 302001 5. Govind Khinchi Son Of Late Shanti Lal Khinchi, Resident Of 214-A, Ward No. 50, Mandi Khatikan, Delhi Road, Jati Ji Ki Baghichi, Jaipur 302001 6. Mohan Lal Khinchi Son Of Late Shanti Lal Khinchi, Resident Of 214-A, Ward No. 50, Mandi Khatikan, Delhi Road, Jati Ji Ki Baghichi, Jaipur 302001 ----Petitioners Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur 302005 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Siddharth Ranka, Adv. with Ms.Apeksha Bapna, Adv. & Mr. Rohan Chatter For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sandeep Pathak, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT Order 27/05/2025 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 25.03.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The relevant facts are that for assessment year 2015-16 no return was filed by the petitioner. However, he had sold immovable [2025:RJ-JP:22263-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-6908/2022] property and sale consideration of which was deposited in the bank account. Notice dated 14.03.2022 was issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The petitioner responded to the notice on 24.03.2022 raising an objection that entry of Rs.22 Lakh has been considered twice, on deducting the said amount the alleged escapement is less than Rs.50 Lakh and the notice is time barred. 3. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) accepted that there was a double entry of Rs.22 Lakh. However, while passing the order under Section 148A(d) the other two entries of Rs.13 Lakh and Rs.5 Lakh which were not part of the notice issued under Section 148A(b) were relied upon and the impugned order was passed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent on instruction and after going through the record fairly submits that there was no notice issued to the petitioner for the entries now relied upon of Rs.13 Lakh and Rs.5 Lakh. 5. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 25.03.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) is quashed and set aside. 6. The writ petition is allowed. 7. The department shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner if so provided in law. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT), J (AVNEESH JHINGAN), J Himanshu Soni/112