SHRI MANOJ KUMAR JAIN vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/20145/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:44573-DB10 October 2025Author: PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, ANUROOP SINGHI3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's contention that jurisdictional issues cannot be raised at any stage. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the assessment proceedings had to be set aside, relying on the judgment in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra). This judgment, in turn, relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), which was noted to be under challenge before the Supreme Court. The Revenue sought liberty to revive the notice under Section 148 if the Apex Court interfered with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated 13th March, 2025, issued under Section 148 and the assessment order dated 11.09.2025 passed under Section 147, with liberty as prayed by the Revenue. The Court clarified that the petitioner did not press other grounds. The petition was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri Manoj Kumar Jain, challenged a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent assessment order. The primary contention was that the notice for re-assessment proceedings was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), rendering both the notice and the assessment order invalid. The assessment year is not explicitly stated. The petitioner participated in the assessment proceedings. The matter came before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is bad in law, and consequently, whether the assessment order passed pursuant to such notice is also bad in law? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The notice under Section 148 was issued by the JAO, not the FAO, making it bad in law, and thus the assessment order is also bad in law. The assessee relied on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench in Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another, which was pronounced after the assessment proceedings concluded, necessitating setting aside the assessment proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The assessee participated in the assessment proceedings without raising the ground of jurisdiction and therefore cannot challenge the notice after the assessment order is passed. The Revenue cited Section 124 of the Act, which bars raising issues of jurisdiction after 30 days of a Section 142(1) notice. The Revenue also noted that the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, relied upon by the Coordinate Bench, was under challenge before the Supreme Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 124,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2025:RJ-JD:44573-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20145/2025 Shri Manoj Kumar Jain S/o Shri Dharmnarain, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of 133, Opposite Dev Nagar, Street No.3, Shyam Nagar, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) - 342003. ----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 Department, Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) - 342010 3. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department, 2Nd Floor, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 110001 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Gattani. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Bhandari. HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI

O R D E R 10/10/2025

1.

One of the grounds raised in this matter is that notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ”the Act”) for initiating re-assessment proceedings was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) and therefore, notice itself is bad in law. Counsel submitted that consequently the assessment order passed is also bad in law. (Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 06:04:11 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:39:17 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44573-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-20145/2025]

2.

Counsel for Revenue Shri Bhandari submitted that assessee participated in assessment proceedings without raising this ground and therefore today after assessment order is passed, he cannot challenge issue of jurisdiction on the ground that notice was to be issued by the FAO and not JAO. He says that Section 124 of the Act bars raising of issue of jurisdiction after 30 days of issuance of notice under Section 142(1).

3.

We disagree with Shri Bhandari because jurisdictional issue can be raised at any stage.

4.

Counsel for assessee states that judgment of Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another passed by a Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 15(1)(2) which we are informed is under challenge before the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition and notice has been issued. Counsel for Revenue 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 vs. Assistant Commisioner of Income-Tax & Others, then Revenue should be given liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. (Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 06:04:11 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:39:17 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44573-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-20145/2025]

6.

Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 13th March, 2025 (Annexure- 1) issued under Section 148 of the Act and assessment order dated 11.09.2025 (Annexure-5) passed under Section 147 of the Act with liberty as prayed.

7.

In view of above, we also clarify that petitioner did not press other grounds.

8.

Petition disposed.

9.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 213-Zeeshan Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 06:04:11 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:39:17 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 →