JASRAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 - JODHPUR

PDF · subscribers
CW/16502/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:38642-DB28 August 2025Author: PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, SANDEEP TANEJA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated 26.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 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), aligning with the precedents cited by the petitioner. The Court acknowledged the Revenue's submission regarding the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case and the potential for the Apex Court to alter the legal position. Therefore, while quashing the notice, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Supreme Court's decision in the related cases impacts the current ruling. The ratio decidendi is that a Section 148 notice issued by a JAO, when faceless assessment procedures are applicable, is invalid, subject to any overriding decision by the Apex Court. The operative direction was to quash the notice with liberty to the Revenue.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jasram S/o Shri Likhma Ram, 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 judgment notes that the notice was indeed issued by the charged JAO. The case involves the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jodhpur, and other revenue authorities as respondents. The assessment year is not explicitly stated, nor is the amount in dispute. The procedural history is limited to the issuance of the Section 148 notice and the subsequent writ petition filed by the assessee.

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, or if it must be issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the JAO and not the FAO, which is contrary to the established legal position. Reliance was placed 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 counsel for the Revenue acknowledged that the notice was issued by the JAO. He stated that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been preferred by the Revenue in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, and notice has been issued. He submitted that while the Court may grant the petitioner's prayer based on the current law, the Revenue should be granted liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court interferes with the aforementioned judgments.

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:38642-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16502/2025 Jasram S/o Shri Likhma Ram, Aged About 55 Years, R/o 3 Ml, Panchayat 2 Ml, Sriganganagar, 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 28/08/2025

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 charged JAO and not FAO.

3.

Mr. Sharad Kothari, learned counsel for petitioner is correct in submitting that this issue has been extensively dealt with in (Uploaded on 01/09/2025 at 06:12:54 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:27:50 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:38642-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-16502/2025] 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 rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 26.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.

6.

Petition is disposed of.

7.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 106-Sudheer/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 01/09/2025 at 06:12:54 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:27:50 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 →