SOHAN RAJ SURANA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL)

PDF · subscribers
CW/2163/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:41560-DB17 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM, RAVI CHIRANIA3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on the Court's prior decisions in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that notices issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) are invalid. The Court also quashed and set aside the consequential assessment order dated 27.03.2025, 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 relied upon by the petitioner. The Court kept open all rights and contentions of the parties for future stages.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sohan Raj Surana, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 24.03.2024 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, but indicated willingness to amend the petition if the Court insisted. The respondents' counsel acknowledged that the Court had previously held such notices to be invalid and agreed not to insist on a formal amendment. The respondents also noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed by the Revenue against a similar judgment in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd., and sought liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court ruled in their favour. An assessment order dated 27.03.2025 had been 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) is valid, or if it must be issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner's counsel, while initially not having formally raised this ground, indicated that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. The Court noted this point based on previous judgments. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's counsel acknowledged the Court's previous view that such notices are invalid. However, they informed the Court that an SLP was pending before the Apex Court concerning the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and sought liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision favoured the Revenue. The Revenue did not press for the validity of the notice in the present proceedings based on the existing High Court 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:41560-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2163/2025 Sohan Raj Surana S/o Late Shri Son Raj Surana, Aged About 84 Years, Address At Oympic Complex, Opp. Sangh Petrol Pump, Jodhpur-342001 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central), Jaipur Having Its Office At New Central Revenue Building, Statute Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur- 302005. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Jodhpur Having Its Office At Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur-342010 ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Ranka, through V.C. Mr. KPS Deora Mr. Harshvardhan Singh For Respondents : Mr. K.K. Bissa HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Order 17/09/2025

1.

At the outset, Mr. Ranka 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. (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 10:31:26 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:37:23 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41560-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-2163/2025]

2.

Mr. 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 24.03.2024 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& 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. 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. Ranka states that in view of the above, for the present, petitioner will reserve his right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. 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 18/09/2025 at 10:31:26 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:37:23 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41560-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-2163/2025]

6.

Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.

7.

Petition disposed.

8.

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

9.

We are informed that after the petition was filed, an assessment order dated 27.03.2025 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. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ 27-pooja/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 10:31:26 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:37:23 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 →