KAN SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/5682/2024HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:34518-DB05 August 2025Author: VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, ANUROOP SINGHI3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court acknowledged that an alternative and efficacious remedy in the form of an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is available to the petitioner under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Court was of the view that the petitioner should exhaust this alternative remedy. However, considering that interim protection was granted to the petitioner from the inception of the writ petition, the Court directed that this protection should continue until the appeal is decided by the appellate authority. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks, and the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks. The time spent in prosecuting the writ petition was to be excluded for computing the period of limitation for filing the appeal. The Court did not decide the merits of the petitioner's argument regarding the Faceless Assessment Scheme.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kan Singh, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur challenging a notice dated 01.04.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an assessment order dated 29.12.2023 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144-B of the Act. The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 should not have been issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer due to the change in assessment regime towards a Faceless Assessment Scheme. The respondents contended that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Act, and therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent assessment order are liable to be quashed on the grounds that the proceedings were initiated in violation of the Faceless Assessment Scheme, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as argued by the respondents? Assessee's Contentions: - The notice under Section 148 and the assessment proceedings are invalid as they were not conducted under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, which was in effect during the relevant period. - The entire proceedings are in violation of the Government of India's Scheme. Revenue's Contentions: - The petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. - The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of this alternative remedy.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144-B,Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2025:RJ-JD:34518-DB] (1 of 3) [CW-5682/2024] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5682/2024 Kan Singh S/o Shri Chhotu Singh, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Lalasari, Didwana, Nagaur, Rajasthan - 341303. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Ambala - Aayakar Bhawan, Ambala, Haryana - 133001. 2. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Through The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Ministry Of Finance, Inside Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 110003. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vedant Agarwal. Mr. Pranjul Mehta. For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI

Order 05/08/2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present writ petition has been filed against the notice dated 01.04.2022 (Annex.1) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’) and Assessment Order dated 29.12.2023 (Annex.2) issued under Section 147 read with section 144-B of the Act of 1961. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 could not have been issued by the concerned Jurisdictional Assessing Officer as after change (Uploaded on 06/08/2025 at 04:38:26 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:21:15 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:34518-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-5682/2024] of regime in the year 2021 and 2022, the assessment was required to be made under the Faceless Assessment Scheme. He submits that entire proceedings initiated pursuant to the notice dated 01.04.2022 are in violation of the Scheme floated by the Government of India. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition filed by the petitioner may be allowed and the notice dated 01.04.2022 so also the Assessment Order dated 29.12.2023 may be quashed and set aside. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has got an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) as per the provisions of Section 246 A of the Act of 1961. He, therefore, submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition filed by the petitioner may be dismissed.

We have considered the submissions made at the bar and also gone through the relevant record of the case. It is true that an alternative and efficacious remedy in the shape of filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is available to the petitioner as per the mandate of Section 246 A of the Act of 1961, therefore, we are of the view that the petitioner may exhaust the alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) however since, an interim protection was granted to the petitioner right from the inception of filing the present writ petition, therefore, interest of justice will be met, if (Uploaded on 06/08/2025 at 04:38:26 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:21:15 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:34518-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-5682/2024] the same is continued till the appeal to be filed by the petitioner is decided by the appellant authority. In view of the discussions made above, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority within a period of two weeks from today. The appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal to be filed by the petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing such appeal. It is further ordered that till the appeal is decided by the appellate authority, the interim protection granted by this court vide order dated 08.04.2024 shall remain in currency. It is made clear that the time spent in prosecuting the present writ petition before this Court shall be excluded by the Appellate Authority, while computing the period of limitation in filing the appeal. Stay application and all pending application (s) stand disposed of accordingly. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 148-Anil Singh/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 06/08/2025 at 04:38:26 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:21:15 PM)

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →