RAJINDER SINGH KAHLON vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/2390/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:18672-DB16 April 2025Author: SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, SUNIL BENIWAL3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the mandate of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be strictly followed, and there is no way to bypass it. It was further held that a Joint Assessing Officer (JAO) does not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, as this would weaken Section 151A and diminish its activation. For assessment and reassessment under Sections 147, 148, and 148A, in conjunction with the sanction under Section 151A, adherence to an algorithm-based random assessing system is mandatory. Consequently, the impugned notices were quashed and set aside concerning the jurisdiction of JAOs for issuing notices under Sections 148 and 148A. The question raised was answered in terms of the aforementioned findings. The respondents were granted liberty to issue fresh notices in compliance with the CBDT Notification dated March 29, 2022, by keeping the FAO (Facilitation Assessing Officer) as the assessing officer. The time spent during the pendency of the litigation was to be excluded for computing the limitation for issuing fresh notices, if required. All pending applications were disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajinder Singh Kahlon, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated April 10, 2024, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents are various authorities of the Income Tax Department. The petitioner pressed only one prayer. The counsel for both parties informed the court that a batch of writ petitions, including "Sharda Devi Chhajer v. The Income Tax Officer and Anr.", had been decided by a co-ordinate bench on March 19, 2025. This court had previously dealt with another batch of writ petitions in "M/s. S.M. Industries v. Union of India and Anr.", disposing of them in light of the "Sharda Devi Chhajer" decision. The present writ petition is being decided following these precedents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the mandate of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has to be strictly followed, and if there is any way to bypass it. (Question of law) 2. Whether a Joint Assessing Officer (JAO) has the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and if such issuance would weaken or diminish the activation of Section 151A. (Question of law) 3. Whether, for the purpose of assessment and reassessment under Sections 147, 148, and 148A, in light of the sanction under Section 151A, adherence to an algorithm-based random assessing system is mandatory. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner relied on the judgment in "Sharda Devi Chhajer v. The Income Tax Officer and Anr.", which held that Section 151A must be strictly followed and that JAOs lack jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148, rendering impugned notices liable to be quashed. The petitioner also relied on the decision in "M/s. S.M. Industries v. Union of India and Anr.". Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue's side; however, it notes that the revenue's counsel informed the court about the decision in "Sharda Devi Chhajer".

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148,Section 151A,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2025:RJ-JD:18672-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2390/2025 Rajinder Singh Kahlon son of Hari Singh Kahlon, aged about 70 Years, residing at 402, Phase 4 Mohali Punjab ----Petitioner Versus 1. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur Central Revenue Building, B.D. Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(1) Central Revenue Building Rani Bazar Bikaner Rajasthan 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Central Revenue Building, Rani Bazar, Bikaner, Rajasthan 4. Chief Commissioner, of Income Tax Jodhpur Aajkar Bhawan Paota C Road Jodhpur Rajasthan 5. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Jodhpur, Aaykar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pushkar Taimni, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order 16/04/2025 This writ petition seeks to challenge order dated 10th April 2024 passed under section 148(A)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed only the prayer made at clause A.

3.

Mr. Pushkar Taimni, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Bissa, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue inform the Court that batch of writ petitions vide D.B. (Uploaded on 25/04/2025 at 01:32:56 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:20:41 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:18672-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-2390/2025] Writ Petition No.11787/2024 and analogous cases titled “Sharda Devi Chhajer v. The Income Tax Officer and Anr.” have been decided by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment rendered on 19th March 2025. In the aforesaid Judgment, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as under :- “20. Thus, this Court holds that the mandate of Section 151A of the Act of 1961 has to be strictly followed as there cannot be a way out of doing the same. This Court also holds that the JAO shall not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, as it would not only render Section 151A weak, but may also lead to its diminishing activation. For the purpose of assessment and reassessment under Sections 147, 148 & 148A and in light of the sanction under Section 151A, adherence has to be made to algorithm based random assessing system, and therefore, the impugned notices deserve to be quashed.

21.

Consequently, the present writ petitions are allowed. Accordingly, the impugned Notices are quashed and set aside, as far as the jurisdiction of JAOs for the purpose of Sections 148 & 148A of the Act of 1961 to issue the same is concerned. The question raised herein stands answered in the terms indicated above, with liberty to the respondents to issue fresh notices in compliance of the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022, by keeping the FAO as assessing officer.

21.

1 However, the time spent during the pendency of the present litigation in the Court, shall be excluded for the purpose of computing limitation for issuance of fresh notices, in case, need arised.

21.

2 All pending applications stand disposed of”

4.

Following the decision in “Sharda Devi Chhajer”, this Court dealt with another batch of writ petitions vide D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3270 of 2023 and analogous cases titled “M/s. S.M. Industries v. Union of India and Anr.” and disposed of those writ petitions in the light of the decision rendered in “Sharda Devi Chhajer”. Following the aforementioned decisions in “Sharda Devi Chhajer and M/s. S.M. Industries”, the present writ petition is (Uploaded on 25/04/2025 at 01:32:56 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:20:41 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:18672-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-2390/2025] allowed by setting aside the assessment order dated 10th April 2024 passed under section 148(A)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with liberty to the Revenue to proceed further in the matter, if so decided, to issue fresh notices in compliance of the C.B.D.T. Notification dated 29th March 2022 by keeping F.A.O. as the Assessing Officer. (SUNIL BENIWAL),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J 31-Arjun/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 25/04/2025 at 01:32:56 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:20:41 PM)

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →