SMT. ANITA SOLANKI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/20692/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:48526-DB12 November 2025Author: PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, ANUROOP SINGHI3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disagreed with the Revenue's contention that jurisdictional issues cannot be raised at any stage. The Court found merit in the assessee's argument, relying on the judgment in Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another, which was passed by a Coordinate Bench. This judgment, in turn, relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax. The Court acknowledged that the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment was under challenge before the Supreme Court. However, based on the law as it stood, the Court quashed the notice dated 13th March, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Act. The Court also clarified that the petitioner did not press other grounds. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties, with liberty granted to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the relevant precedents.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Smt. Anita Solanki, challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for initiating re-assessment proceedings. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), rendering it bad in law, and consequently, the assessment order was also invalid. The Revenue contended that the petitioner participated in the assessment proceedings without raising this jurisdictional issue and therefore could not challenge it after the assessment order was passed, citing Section 124 of the Act. The High Court considered a previous judgment by a Coordinate Bench in Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another, which dealt with a similar issue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is bad in law, and consequently, the assessment order passed is also invalid? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: - The notice under Section 148 was issued by the JAO, not the FAO, making it bad in law. Consequently, the assessment order is also bad in law. - A Coordinate Bench's judgment in Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another, which was pronounced after the assessment proceedings concluded, supports setting aside the assessment proceedings. Revenue's Contentions: - The assessee participated in the assessment proceedings without raising the jurisdictional ground and therefore cannot challenge it after the assessment order is passed. - Section 124 of the Act bars raising issues of jurisdiction after 30 days of the issuance of a notice under Section 142(1). - The Revenue acknowledged that the Court may grant the petitioner's prayer based on the current law but sought liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court interferes with judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. or Sharda Devi Chhajer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 124,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2025:RJ-JD:48526-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20692/2025 Smt. Anita Solanki W/o Pradeep Solanki, Aged About 44 Years, Purani Bhakari Ka Bass, Soorsagar, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) - 342024 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur, Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) - 342010 E: jodhpur.ito3.@incometaxgov.in 2. Additional/joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 3, Jodhpur, Office Of Income Department, Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)-342010 ----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 12/11/2025

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.

2.

Shri Bhandari, learned counsel for Revenue submitted that assessee participated in assessment proceedings without raising

this ground and therefore today after assessment order is passed, (Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 01:00:45 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:39:24 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:48526-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-20692/2025] 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.

6.

Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties, we quash the notice dated 13th March, 2025 (Annexure-1) issued under Section 148 of the Act. (Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 01:00:45 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:39:24 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:48526-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-20692/2025]

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 18-Zeeshan Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 01:00:45 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:39:24 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 →