NIKHIL JAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/12413/2024HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:41559-DB17 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM, RAVI CHIRANIA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, acknowledging the agreement between the parties, quashed and set aside the notice dated April 11, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court's decision was based on its prior ruling in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that such notices issued by a JAO, rather than a FAO, are invalid. However, the court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to overturn the aforementioned judgments. The court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Nikhil Jain, challenged a notice dated April 11, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent is the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Udaipur. The core of the challenge was that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur was hearing the writ petition. The revenue, through its counsel, acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the same court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated 11.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid if issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notice under Section 148 was bad and not valid because it was issued by a JAO, relying on the High Court's judgment in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). Revenue's Contention: The revenue agreed that one ground was covered by the court's judgment. While acknowledging the current legal position, the revenue noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed in the Apex Court regarding the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, and notice had been issued. The revenue requested liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited.

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:41559-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12413/2024 Nikhil Jain S/o Sunganti Lal Jain, Aged About 38 Years, R/o- 1338 A, Sector 5, Hiran Magri, Udaipur, Rajasthan - 313002. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ito, Ward-2(1), Udp, Aaykar Bhawan, Rajast, Subcity Centre, Savina, Udaipur, Rajasthan, 313001. ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Pranav Bharadwaj For Respondent : Mr. K.K. Bissa HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Order 17/09/2025

1.

Mr. Bissa, who appears on advance copy, agrees with Mr. Bharadwaj that one of the grounds raised certainly is covered by a judgment of this Court.

2.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 11.04.2023 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) and this Court in the case of Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & TaxOfficer & Another2 and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2)3,has held that such a notice will be bad and not valid. 1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) 2 2025 SCCOnLine Raj 3386 3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 10:32:22 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:29:11 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41559-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-12413/2024]

3.

At the same time, Mr. Bissa states 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.

4.

Mr. Bharadwaj states that in view of the above, for the present, petitioner will reserve its right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage.

5.

Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 11.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.

6.

Petition disposed.

7.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed.

8.

In case, if any re-assessment order is passed, the same will also stand quashed and set aside. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ 24-pooja/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 10:32:22 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:29:11 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 →