RAM PRATAP vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 - JODHPUR

PDF · subscribers
CW/16439/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:38388-DB27 August 2025Author: PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, SANDEEP TANEJA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal, following the order dated 12.08.2025 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5745/2025 (Gaze Fashion Trade Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax), quashed and set aside the notice dated 19.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary reason for this decision was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which was a significant ground for challenge. The Tribunal acknowledged the revenue's submission regarding the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case and granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision altered the existing legal position. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of on these terms, and all pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ram Pratap, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur. The respondents are various income tax authorities, including the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jodhpur, and the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The petitioner challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The High Court noted that the controversy was covered by a previous order dated 12.08.2025 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5745/2025, titled Gaze Fashion Trade Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The present writ petition was disposed of on the same terms as the cited order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is valid? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The notice under Section 148 was issued by the JAO and not the FAO, which is a primary ground for challenge. The assessee relies 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 a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been preferred in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, and notice had been issued by the Apex Court. The revenue sought liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court interfered with the judgments in the cited cases.

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:38388-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16439/2025 Ram Pratap S/o Surja Ram, Aged About 55 Years, Ward No. 3, 17 M L Pathan Wala, 11 Lnp, Udyog Vihar, Ganganagar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 - Jodhpur, (Pcit Jodhpur), Aayakar Bhawan Paota C Road, Jodhpur 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. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax - Range 1, Aaykar Bhawan, Rani Bazar, Bikaner - 334001 5. Income Tax Officer, Ito Ward 1, Sri Ganganagar ----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 12.08.2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5745/2025 titled as “Gaze Fashion Trade Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax”. The order dated 12.08.2025 reads as under :- (Uploaded on 01/09/2025 at 10:57:03 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:27:42 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:38388-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-16439/2025] “1. At the outset, respondent is seeking ten days’ time to file reply, but we are not inclined to grant any further time for the reason being counsel for revenue was present before this Court on 11th March 2025 when interim order was granted to petitioner. Even on 28th July 2025 when interim order was continued, counsel for revenue had sought one week’s to file reply. That one week’s time got over on 4th August 2025. 2. 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).

3.

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

4.

Mr. Jhanwar, senior 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 Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income- Tax & Others3. 5. 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.

6.

Therefore, keeping open rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 19.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.

7.

Petition disposed. (Uploaded on 01/09/2025 at 10:57:03 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:27:42 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:38388-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-16439/2025]

8.

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 125-deep/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 01/09/2025 at 10:57:03 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:27:42 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 →