KAMINI JINDAL vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - RANGE 1

PDF · subscribers
CW/14428/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:37568-DB21 August 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM, SANDEEP TANEJA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated June 17, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act. The Court found merit in the petitioner's submission that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), a point extensively dealt with in the cited precedents. While acknowledging the revenue's submission regarding the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case and the potential for the Apex Court to interfere with the existing judgments, the Court decided to grant the petitioner's prayer. However, to protect the revenue's interest, the Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited is altered. The petition was disposed of with these directions, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kamini Jindal, challenged a notice dated June 17, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondents are various income tax authorities, including the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (National E-Assessment Center), the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Income Tax Officer, and the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Rajasthan). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the judgment. The procedural history involves the issuance of the Section 148 notice, which is now under challenge before the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is invalid if it is issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the JAO and not the FAO, which is a primary ground for challenge. The petitioner relied on the decisions in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another, and Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others. Revenue's Contention: The revenue acknowledged that the notice was issued by the JAO. Counsel for the revenue stated that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been filed in the Apex Court regarding the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case. The revenue requested liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court's decision in the aforementioned cases is altered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2025:RJ-JD:37568-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14428/2025 Kamini Jindal D/o Shri Bajrang Das Jindal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 123 Vinoba Basti Sriganganagar, 335001 Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax - Range 1, Bikaner, Income Tax Office, 3B, Opposite Police Line, Abohar Road, Sriganganagar. 2. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (National E- Assessment Center), 2Nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Delhi - 110003 3. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Cbdt Headquarters North Block (Department Of Revenue), New Delhi -110001 4. Income Tax Officer, Ito Ward 1, Sri Ganganagar. 5. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rajasthan, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Pranjul Mehta For Respondents : Mr. K.K. Bissa. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order 21/08/2025

1.

One of the primary grounds raised is that notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO).

2.

Indisputably, the notice to petitioner has been issued by the JAO and not FAO. (Uploaded on 22/08/2025 at 04:41:41 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:21:44 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:37568-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-14428/2025]

3.

Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2)1, Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another2 and Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others3. 4. Shri Bissa submitted that in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Revenue has preferred a Special Leave Petition and notice has been issued. Counsel states that in view of the law as it stands today, Court may grant the prayer of petitioner but in case the Apex Court interferes with judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra) or Shree Cement Limited (supra), then Revenue should be given liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act.

5.

Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 17.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.

6.

Petition disposed.

7.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ 20-a.asopa/- 1 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) 2 2025 SCCOnLine Raj 3386 3 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 22/08/2025 at 04:41:41 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:21:44 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 →