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

PDF · subscribers
CW/13481/2025HC RajasthanRJHC02076813202509 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated March 21, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which has been held to be bad and invalid by this Court in previous judgments, including Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Tribunal granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments, as an SLP was pending in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Consequently, the assessment order dated February 25, 2025, which was consequential to the invalid notice, was also quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.

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 25, 2025. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The Revenue, represented by Mr. Jain, agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the Court. The Revenue also noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed against the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and notice had been issued. The Revenue sought liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court interfered with the relevant judgments.

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: The Revenue agreed that the ground was covered by existing judgments. However, it sought liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited, as an SLP had been filed in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and notice issued.

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:36200-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13481/2025 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:36200-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-13481/2025] & 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 25th February 2025 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:36200-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-13481/2025]

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/35

More judgments on Section 148

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →