S.K. INTERNATIONAL vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/17252/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:41192-DB16 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM, RAVI CHIRANIA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated 26.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the assessment order dated 26.06.2025 passed under Section 148A(3) of the Act. The Court found merit in the petitioner's submission that the notice was issued by the JAO and not the FAO, aligning with the legal position established in the cited cases. The revenue did not dispute this fact. However, the Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to alter the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The petition was disposed of with these directions, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, S.K. International, a partnership firm, challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and a subsequent assessment order. The primary contention was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which the petitioner argued was contrary to established procedure. The revenue acknowledged that the notice was indeed issued by the JAO. The case involved a notice dated 26.06.2025 and an assessment order dated 26.06.2025 passed under Section 148A(3) of the Act. The High Court was considering the writ petition filed by the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that the notice and subsequent order were bad in law as they were not issued by the designated Faceless Assessing Officer, relying on precedents like 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. The revenue conceded that the notice was issued by the JAO. The revenue's counsel acknowledged the current legal position but sought liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the cited judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2025:RJ-JD:41192-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17252/2025 S.k. International, A Partnership Firm, Having Its Principal Place Of Business At Purana Bazar, Fartehnagar, Udaipur 313205, Rajasthan Through Its Partner Manoz Kumar S/o Shree Ram Lal Agarwal, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Ward No. 16, Fatehnagar, Changeri, Udaipur, 313205, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-2, Aaykar Bhawan, Sub City Centre, Savina, Udaipur. 2. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, (National E- Assessment Centre), 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-2(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Sub City Centre, Savina, Udaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sharad Kothari, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. K.K. Bissa, Advocate HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Order 16/09/2025

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 JAO and not FAO.

3.

Shri Kothari counsel for petitioner is correct in submitting that this issue has been extensively dealt with in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income- (Uploaded on 17/09/2025 at 05:14:13 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:28:56 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41192-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-17252/2025] 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 all rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 26.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act and assessment order dated 26.06.2025 passed under Section 148A(3) of the Act with liberty as prayed.

6.

Petition disposed.

7.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ 18-pooja/- 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) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 17/09/2025 at 05:14:13 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:28:56 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 →