LALIT KISHORE JAIN vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/24508/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:54309-DB16 December 2025Bench: PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, SANJEET PUROHIT2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal, following the decision in M/s. Jagtamba Timber Mart Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), quashed and set aside the notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the assessment order dated March 21, 2025, passed under Section 147 of the Act, along with consequential proceedings. The Court accepted the undertaking of the petitioner to apply to withdraw any appeal already filed within two weeks. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the notice under Section 148 of the Act if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra), or Shree Cement Limited (supra). All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the order passed in the Jagtamba Timber Mart case.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Lalit Kishore Jain, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an assessment order dated March 21, 2025, passed under Section 147 of the Act, along with consequential proceedings. The respondent is the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Jodhpur. The parties agreed that the controversy was covered by a prior judgment of a coordinate Bench in M/s. Jagtamba Timber Mart Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, decided on November 12, 2025. In that prior case, the notice and assessment order were quashed and set aside. The revenue sought liberty to revive the notice if certain Supreme Court decisions were overturned. The petitioner agreed to withdraw their appeal if filed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the assessment order dated March 21, 2025, passed under Section 147 of the Act, along with consequential proceedings, are liable to be quashed and set aside. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, agreed that the controversy was squarely covered by the judgment in M/s. Jagtamba Timber Mart (supra). The petitioner's counsel stated that other grounds raised were not being pressed and would be taken up at an appropriate stage if required. The petitioner also agreed to withdraw any appeal already filed within two weeks. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel, Mr. Bissa, submitted that a Special Leave Petition had been preferred by the Revenue in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), and notice had been issued. In view of the law as it stood, the revenue requested liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act in case the Apex Court interfered with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra), or Shree Cement Limited (supra).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JD:54309-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24508/2025 Lalit Kishore Jain S/o Shri Shanti Lal Jain, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of 12 C/o, Paota 2Nd B Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan 342006. Pan- Ahtpj0328G ----Petitioner Versus The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Jodhpur Having Its Address At Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur- 342010. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Arora. For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa. HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 16/12/2025 1. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.22164/2025 (M/s. Jagtamba Timber Mart Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax) decided on 12.11.2025 in the following terms:- “12. In these circumstances, notice dated 24th March 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act and assessment order dated 21th March 2025 passed under Section 147 of the Act along with consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed and set aside. 13. At this stage, Mr. Bissa submits that in judgment of 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 (Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 03:48:14 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:35:15 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:54309-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-24508/2025] 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. 14. In view of the above, counsel for the petitioner states that other grounds raised are not being pressed upon and they will be taken at appropriate stage, if required. 15. Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 24th March 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act and assessment order dated 21th March 2025 passed under Section 147 of the Act along with consequential proceedings, with liberty as prayed. 16. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to apply within two weeks to withdraw the appeal already filed. 17. Undertaking accepted. 18. Petition disposed. 19. Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed.” 2. In view of the submissions made before this Court, the present Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms of the order passed in M/s Jagtamba Timber Mart (supra). (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 149-sumer/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 03:48:14 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:35:15 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 →