ALOK KUMAR LODHA S/O K.C. JAIN vs. DGIT (INV.) RAJASTHAN, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT

PDF · subscribers
CW/13489/2025HC RajasthanRJHC02076806202509 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 28, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's reasoning was based on its previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are invalid. Consequently, the assessment order dated March 13, 2024, which was consequential to the invalid notice, was also quashed and set aside. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to rule differently in the pending Special Leave Petition concerning Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The parties' rights and contentions were kept open, and the petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. The petition was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Alok Kumar Lodha, challenged a notice dated March 28, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a consequential assessment order dated March 13, 2024. The respondents are various income-tax authorities. The core of the challenge was that the Section 148 notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The petitioner's counsel agreed with the revenue's counsel that one of the grounds raised was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court. The revenue's counsel acknowledged that the notice might be invalid based on existing precedents but sought liberty to revive it if the Supreme Court's decision in a related case differed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated March 28, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is valid? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that such a notice is invalid, relying on the High Court's judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue's counsel agreed that one ground was covered by precedent. They conceded that based on the law as it stands, the prayer of the petitioner might be granted. However, they requested liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited.

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-JP:36312-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13489/2025 Alok Kumar Lodha S/o K.c. Jain, F-24 A, Hauz Khas Enclave, Green Park Market, South West Delhi 110016, Delhi-India. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Dgit (Inv.) Rajasthan, Income-Tax Department, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur 3. Assisstant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Income Tax Department, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Kasliwal with Mr. Priyesh Kasliwal & Ms. Monika Kachhawaha For Respondents : Mr. Sarvesh Jain HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order 09/09/2025

1.

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

2.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 28th March 2023 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued by a Juri ictional 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

[2025:RJ-JP:36312-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-13489/2025] & Others1 following Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The 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.

3.

At the same time, Mr. Jain 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. Kasliwal 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 28th March 2023 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.

Since we have held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act itself is not valid, the consequential assessment order dated 13th March 2024 cannot be sustained. The same is also quashed and set aside. 1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) 2 2025 SCCOnLine Raj 3386 3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)

[2025:RJ-JP:36312-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-13489/2025]

9.

Mr. Kasliwal’s statement that application to withdraw the appeal will be filed within two weeks, is accepted. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N.GANDHI/RAJAT/37

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →