DIWAN CHAND vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 - JODHPUR

PDF · subscribers
CW/16442/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:38389-DB27 August 2025Author: PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, SANDEEP TANEJA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal, following the order dated August 12, 2025, in Gaze Fashion Trade Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, quashed and set aside the notice dated March 19, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act. The reasoning was based on the established principle that notices under Section 148 should be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) and not the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), as supported by the cited High Court judgments. The Tribunal granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The petition was disposed of on these terms, keeping open the rights and contentions of all parties. No specific amount in dispute was recorded.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Diwan Chand, filed a civil writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur. The petition challenged an action by the Income Tax Department. The respondents included the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jodhpur, the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (National E-Assessment Center), the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner, and the Income Tax Officer, Sri Ganganagar. The parties submitted that the controversy was covered by a previous order of a Coordinate Bench dated August 12, 2025, in the case of Gaze Fashion Trade Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax.

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 mixed fact and law, 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 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 a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was preferred in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case and notice had been issued. The revenue submitted that if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited, the revenue should be granted liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148.

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:38389-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16442/2025 Diwan Chand S/o Shri Surja Ram, Aged About 61 Years, Ward No. 2, Pathawala, 17 Ml, 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 :- “1. At the outset, respondent is seeking ten days’ time to file reply, but we are not inclined to grant any (Uploaded on 01/09/2025 at 10:56:08 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:27:45 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:38389-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-16442/2025] 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.

8.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed.” (Uploaded on 01/09/2025 at 10:56:08 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:27:45 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:38389-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-16442/2025]

2.

The present civil writ petition is disposed of on the same terms. (SANDEEP TANEJA), J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 126-deep/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 01/09/2025 at 10:56:08 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:27:45 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 →