RAVINDRA JAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/13503/2023HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:37681-DB22 August 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM, SANDEEP TANEJA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated 17.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which was supported by several High Court judgments, including Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Shree Cement Limited. The Tribunal acknowledged the Revenue's submission regarding the pending Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court in the Hexaware Technologies case and granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision differed from the cited High Court judgments. The Tribunal clarified that the petitioner did not press other grounds raised in the petition. The petition was disposed of with these directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ravindra Jain, challenged a notice 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 respondent, Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur, issued the notice. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the issuance of the Section 148 notice and the subsequent writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging its validity. The judgment records that the petitioner did not press other grounds raised in the petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is valid? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 was invalid because it was issued by the JAO and not the FAO, relying on the decisions in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1), Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another, and Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others. Revenue's Contention: The respondent (Revenue) acknowledged that the notice was issued by the JAO. They submitted that while the court might grant the petitioner's prayer based on the current legal position, they should be granted liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court overturns the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited.

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:37681-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13503/2023 Ravindra Jain S/o Premchand Jain, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 9A- B, Jain Colony, Outside Mahamandir Iii Pole, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, 342006. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, 342010. ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, through V.C. Mr. Jaideep Singh Saluja For Respondent : Mr. K.K. Bissa HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order 22/08/2025

1.

Counsel for petitioner states that 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.

3.

Counsel for petitioner is correct in submitting that this issue has been extensively dealt with in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1) (2)1, Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others3. 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) (Uploaded on 26/08/2025 at 02:41:39 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:27:04 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:37681-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-13503/2023]

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 17.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.

6.

In view of above, we also clarify that petitioner did not press other grounds.

7.

Petition disposed.

8.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ 14-MohitTak/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 26/08/2025 at 02:41:39 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:27:04 AM)

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →