SMT. BASANTI KELA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/17284/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:41599-DB17 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM, RAVI CHIRANIA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated 13.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This decision was based on the concession made by the revenue that the ground raised by the petitioner, concerning the issuance of the notice by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), was covered by the High Court's previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court acknowledged the revenue's submission regarding the pending SLP in the Apex Court and granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision altered the existing legal position. The petition was disposed of with this liberty reserved. Any re-assessment order passed subsequently was also to stand quashed and set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Smt. Basanti Kela, challenged a notice dated 13.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The challenge was based on the ground that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondents are the Income-Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Jodhpur, and the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 3, Jodhpur. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur considered the matter. The revenue acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated 13.06.2025 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? The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 was invalid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, relying on the High Court's judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer. The revenue conceded that this ground was covered by the cited judgments. However, the revenue also stated that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed in the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, and notice had been issued. The revenue requested liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Apex Court's decision differed from the High Court's rulings.

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:41599-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17284/2025 Smt. Basanti Kela W/o Shri Mool Chand Kela, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of 776, Bhojavato Ka Bas, Soorsagar, Jodhpur - 342024 (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1), Jodhpur, Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) - 342010 E- Jodhpur.ito3.1@incometaxgov.in 2. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 3, Jodhpur Office Of Income-Tax Department, Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road Jodhpur (Rajasthan) - 342010 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sharad Kothari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Bhandari HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Order 17/09/2025

1.

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

2.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 13.06.2025 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 & DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) (Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 11:57:17 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:39:11 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41599-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-17284/2025] 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.

3.

At the same time, Mr. Bhandari 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. Kothari states that in view of the above, for the present, petitioner will reserve his 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 13.06.2025 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 3-a.asopa/- 2 2025 SCC OnLine 3386 3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225(Bombay) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 11:57:17 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:39:11 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 →