DHULI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/5637/2023HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:42584-DB23 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM, SANDEEP TANEJA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 28, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged that the ground raised by the petitioner regarding the notice being issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) was covered by its own previous judgments, specifically referencing Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. While the revenue agreed with this position, it highlighted that an SLP had been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and the Apex Court had issued notice. Consequently, the Court granted the petitioner's prayer for the present, quashing the notice, but with liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside. All other rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Dhuli, challenged a notice dated March 28, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward, Maharana Pratap Circle, Udaipur. The challenge was based on the assertion that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent revenue, represented by Mr. K.K. Bissa, acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court. The revenue also informed the court that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed against the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and notice had been issued by the Apex Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated March 28, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is bad in law and invalid, as opposed to being issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? This issue turns on the interpretation of the procedural requirements for issuing notices under Section 148 in the context of faceless assessment schemes. Contentions: Assessee: The notice issued by a JAO is bad in law and invalid, relying on the High Court's judgments in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). Revenue: The revenue agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a judgment of the Court. However, it was stated that an SLP had been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued by the Apex Court. The revenue sought liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court interfered 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:42584-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5637/2023 Dhuli W/o Sh. Hardariya, Aged About 63 Years, 114 Jatoda, Biya Dungari, Garhi, Banswara - 327022, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ito Ward, Maharana Pratap Circle, Udaipur Main Road, Banswara, Banswara, Rajasthan, 327001. ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Jaideep Singh Saluja For Respondent : Mr. K.K. Bissa with Mr. G.S. Chouhan HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order 23/09/2025

1.

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

2.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 28th March 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 & 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 23/09/2025 at 05:22:39 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:29:44 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:42584-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-5637/2023]

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. Saluja 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 28th March 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. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ 11-pooja/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 05:22:39 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:29:44 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 →