TIKAM DAS S/O JHABAR MAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/4301/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02020046202308 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal, acknowledging the agreement between the parties regarding the applicability of existing judgments, decided to quash and set aside the notice dated July 25, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court followed its previous decisions in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that notices issued by JAOs instead of FAOs are invalid. However, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments in the pending SLP. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. Consequently, any reassessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Tikam Das, challenged a notice dated July 25, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), rendering it invalid. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Jaipur, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-1, and the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, was hearing the writ petition. The procedural history involves the issuance of the notice and the subsequent challenge by the petitioner.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is invalid and bad in law? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice dated July 25, 2022, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, and therefore, it is bad and not valid. The petitioner relied on the judgments of this Court in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others and Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a judgment of the Court. The Revenue acknowledged that in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), where a similar issue was decided, a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been filed by the Revenue, and notice has been issued by the Apex Court. The Revenue requested liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court interferes 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:36129-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4301/2023 Tikam Das S/o Jhabar Mal, Having Her Address At House No. 142A, Avadhpuri, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur 302017. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Jaipur Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur- 302005. 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-1, Jaipur Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur. 3. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, Having Its Address At North Block, New Delhi, Through Its Chairman. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka Advocate with Mr. Rohan Chatter Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak Advocate with Ms. Jaya P. Pathak Advocate & Mr. Palash Gupta Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Judgment 08/09/2025

1.

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

2.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 25th July 2022 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued by a Juri ictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Offider (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 1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported)

[2025:RJ-JP:36129-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-4301/2023] 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. Sandeep Pathak 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. Siddharth Ranka 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 25th July 2022 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.

In case, if any re-assessment order is passed, the same will also stand quashed and set aside. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT-SEEMA/59 2 2025 SCCOnLine Raj 3386 3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →