ALOK KUMAR LODHA S/O K.C. JAIN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/13493/2025HC RajasthanRJHC02076810202509 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated February 20, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential assessment order dated March 16, 2025. The primary reason for quashing the notice was that it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which the Court held to be invalid based on its prior judgments in 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 the judgments relied upon by the petitioner. The Court also noted that the petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. The petition was disposed of, and all pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Alok Kumar Lodha, challenged a notice dated February 20, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a consequential assessment order dated March 16, 2025. The petitioner contended that the Section 148 notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondents are the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The case was heard by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is valid, or if it must be issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? Assessee's contention: The notice dated February 20, 2024, under Section 148 is bad and invalid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. This contention is supported by the High Court's judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's contention: The revenue acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner is covered by the High Court's judgment. However, the revenue noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been filed in the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice has been issued. The revenue requested liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Apex Court interferes with the aforementioned judgments.

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:36218-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13493/2025 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. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur 2. 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 20th February 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 & 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. 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:36218-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-13493/2025]

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 20th February 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 16th March 2025 cannot be sustained. The same is also quashed and set aside.

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/38

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →