RATAN SIROHI vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

PDF · subscribers
CW/19706/2022HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:41958-DB19 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM, SANGEETA SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal, acknowledging the agreement from the revenue's counsel that the ground was covered by a previous judgment of the Court, quashed and set aside the notice dated July 26, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on the High Court's decisions in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that such notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are invalid. The Court also quashed and set aside the consequential assessment order dated May 31, 2023, as it could not be sustained if the underlying notice was invalid. Liberty was granted to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Court kept open all rights and contentions of the parties. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ratan Sirohi, challenged a notice dated July 26, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), rendering it invalid. The respondents, the Income Tax Department and the Central Board of Direct Taxes, acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court. The respondents also noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed against the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and notice had been issued. An assessment order dated May 31, 2023, was passed after the petition was filed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is bad in law and invalid? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice dated July 26, 2022, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, making it invalid. This contention was supported by the High Court's judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, agreed that one of the grounds raised was covered by a judgment of the Court. However, they stated that an SLP had been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued. They requested liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court interfered with the aforementioned judgments. The revenue did not otherwise contest the invalidity of the notice based on the cited precedents.

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:41958-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19706/2022 Ratan Sirohi S/o Gopal Kishan Sirohi, Aged About 44 Years, Sirohi Shoe Maker, Opp. Karni Market Phad Bazad, Bikaner, Rajasthan 334001 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Office Of The Income Tax Department, Ito Ward-1(1), Bkn, Aaykar Bhawan, Rani Bazar, Bikaner, Rajasthan - 3340001. 2. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Through Chairperson, Type-7, Bungalow No. 75, New Moti Bagh, New Delhi - 110021 ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rajat Sharma, through VC For Respondents : Mr. K.K. Bissa, Mr. G.S. Chouhan HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

Order 19/09/2025

1.

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

2.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 26th July 2022 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 & Others1 following Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & 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 20/09/2025 at 01:56:36 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:29:33 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41958-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-19706/2022]

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. Sharma 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 26th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.

6.

We are informed that after the petition was filed, an assessment order dated 31st May 2023 has already been passed. Since we have held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act itself is not valid, the consequential assessment order cannot be sustained. The same is also quashed and set aside.

7.

Petition disposed.

8.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ 16-pooja/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 01:56:36 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:29:33 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 →