TILOKA RAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1

PDF · subscribers
CW/18450/2024HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:41962-DB19 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM, SANGEETA SHARMA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 20, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court did so based on the understanding that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), a ground that had been held to render such notices invalid by this Court in previous decisions like Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Supreme Court's decision in the pending SLP concerning Hexaware Technologies Ltd. differed from the High Court's view. The Court also stated that any reassessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All other rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Tiloka Ram, through Godawari Construction Company, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 20, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's counsel initially stated that the ground regarding the notice being issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) had not been taken. However, the Revenue's counsel acknowledged that the High Court had previously taken a view that such notices are invalid. The Revenue also mentioned that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed in the Supreme Court concerning the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which had relied on similar precedents. The Revenue sought liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court's decision differed from the High Court's.

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 invalid when it should have been issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner's counsel, while initially not having formally raised the ground, agreed that the notice issued by the JAO is invalid, citing the High Court's view in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's counsel acknowledged the High Court's stance that such notices are invalid. However, they pointed out that an SLP was pending before the Supreme Court in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case. The Revenue requested liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court's decision overturned the High Court's rulings in the cited cases.

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:41962-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18450/2024 Tiloka Ram S/o Shri Hemaram, Aged About 48 Years, Godawari Construction Company, Jhalra Road, Tehsil Kuchaman City, Kuchaman City, District Deedwana- Kuchaman, Rajasthan- 341508. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Jodhpur, Aayakar Bhawan, Lal Maidan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ito Ward 1, Makrana, Rajasthan, Near Byepass Railway Overbridge, Shive Colony, Makrana, District Nagaur, Rajasthan-341505. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Pushkar Taimini For Respondents : Mr. K.K Bissa Mr. GS Chouhan HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

Order 19/09/2025

1.

At the outset, Mr. Pushkar Taimini states that the legal ground that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not valid because it has been issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), has not been taken. Counsel states in the Court that petition is yet to be admitted and if the Court insists, petitioner will take out an application for adding grounds.

2.

Mr. K.K Bissa states that this Court has taken a view that such a notice will be invalid and he will not insist on formal amendment in the petition.

3.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 20th March 2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 02:12:15 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:29:38 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41962-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-18450/2024] 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.

4.

At the same time, Mr. K.K 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.

5.

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

6.

Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 20th March 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. 1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) 2 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 3386 3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 02:12:15 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:29:38 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41962-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-18450/2024]

9.

In case, if any re-assessment order is passed, the same will also stand quashed and set aside. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ 25-divyaP/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 02:12:15 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:29:38 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 →