[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, Ramesh Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Through Authorised Signatory Ravindra Pratap Singh Parihar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 3 Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Gunjan Pathak with Ms. Ishita Rawat For 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 Order 03/09/2025 1. Petitioner is challenging a notice dated 30th September 2021, issued under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), whereby petitioner was called upon to submit explanation as to why petitioner’s books of accounts for Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2020-21 may not be referred to special audit as per provisions of Section 142(2A) of the Act. Various grounds have been raised, one of which is that notice has been issued mechanically without application of mind because petitioner itself was incorporated only in the year 2017. Copy of [2025:RJ-JP:35191-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-13524/2021] the Company Master Data, which is annexed to the petition, states the date of incorporation as 26th July 2017. 2. In the reply to the petition, there is no denial to the fact that petitioner was incorporated in the year 2017. 3. Mr. Gunjan Pathak, counsel for petitioner submitted that therefore, notice has been issued without application of mind and the question of accounts being complex for Assessment Year 2014-2015 upto the date of incorporation will not arise because there are no accounts. 4. Mr. Pathak submitted that since notice itself has been issued without application of mind, the entire foundation of respondents’ case will collapse and hence, the notice has to be quashed and set aside. 5. Mr. Siddharth Bapna, counsel for respondents submits that this notice came to be issued pursuant to a search which was conducted in the year 2019 in the premises of petitioner and its Directors. Mr. Bapna states that pursuant to Section 153A and 153C of the Act, department is entitled to reassess for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant 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 year of search, but that does not mean that they will do audit or reassess the accounts for years upto 2014-2015 also. As the company itself was not in existence, there can be no accounts for those years. [2025:RJ-JP:35191-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-13524/2021] 7. Therefore, as the notice dated 30th September 2021 itself has been issued without application of mind, in our view, the notice cannot stand. The notice is quashed and set aside. 8. Petition disposed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ KAMLESH KUMAR-RAHUL/8