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

PDF · subscribers
CW/13483/2025HC RajasthanRJHC02076811202509 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 21, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential assessment order dated February 20, 2025. The decision was based on the ground that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which was held to be bad and invalid in previous judgments of the Court, specifically referencing Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with these judgments. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. The Court also accepted the petitioner's statement that an application to withdraw the appeal would be filed within two weeks.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Alok Kumar Lodha, challenged a notice dated March 21, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a consequential assessment order dated February 20, 2025. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondents, represented by Mr. Jain, agreed that one of the grounds raised was covered by a previous judgment of the Court. The revenue also indicated that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed against a relevant High Court judgment, and notice had been issued. The parties agreed to a conditional quashing of the notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated March 21, 2024, 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 Contention: The notice is bad and invalid as it was not issued by the designated Faceless Assessing Officer, relying on the judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's Contention: While agreeing that the notice is covered by the aforementioned judgments, the revenue noted that an SLP has been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice has been issued. The revenue sought liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court overturns the decisions 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:36201-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13483/2025 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 21st March 2024 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:36201-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-13483/2025] & 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 21st March 2024 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 20th February 2025 cannot be sustained. The same is also quashed and set aside. 1DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) 22025 SCCOnLine Raj 3386 3[2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)

[2025:RJ-JP:36201-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-13483/2025]

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/36

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →