REKHA RANI AGGARWAL vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - RANGE 1 BIKANER

PDF · subscribers
CW/15912/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:38317-DB27 August 2025Author: PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, SANDEEP TANEJA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, following a coordinate bench's order in Kamini Jindal Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax – Range 1 & Ors., quashed and set aside the notice dated 17.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court found that the notice was indeed issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). Relying on the precedents of Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Shree Cement Limited, the Court held that such a notice issued by the JAO was invalid. However, the Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in the aforementioned cases. The petition was disposed of on these terms, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rekha Rani Aggarwal, filed a Civil Writ Petition before the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur. The petition challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The respondents included various income tax authorities, including the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (National E-Assessment Center), and the Income Tax Officer. The core of the dispute revolved around the authority that issued the Section 148 notice. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which was contrary to the prevailing legal framework.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is valid when the faceless assessment regime is in place? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the JAO, not the FAO, and this was a fundamental flaw. They relied on the decisions in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2)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 revenue acknowledged that the notice was issued by the JAO. They noted that a Special Leave Petition had been filed by the revenue in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, and notice had been issued. The revenue requested that if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in the cited cases, they should be granted liberty to revive the Section 148 notice.

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:38317-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15912/2025 Rekha Rani Aggarwal, Aged About 45 Years, C/o Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 6, Nagpal Colony, Street No. 2, Nagpal Colony, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax - Range 1 Bikaner, Income Tax Office, 3B, Opposite Police Line, Abohar Road, Sri Ganganagar 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(s) : Mr. Sharad Kothari For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order 27/08/2025

1.

Learned counsel for the parties submits that the controversy involved in this case is squarely covered by the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14428/2025 titled as “Kamini Jindal Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax – Range 1 & Ors.”. The order dated 21.08.2025 reads as under :- “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). (Uploaded on 01/09/2025 at 11:01:01 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:27:32 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:38317-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-15912/2025]

2.

Indisputably, the notice to petitioner has been issued by the JAO and not FAO.

3.

Shri Pranjul Mehta 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 & Another2 and Shree 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.”

2.

The present civil writ petition is disposed of on the same terms. (SANDEEP TANEJA), J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 112-deep/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 01/09/2025 at 11:01:01 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:27:32 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 →