RAKESH JAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 29(1) & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/19176/2025HC DelhiDLHC01102991202518 December 2025Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that both the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) and the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) are competent to initiate proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This decision was based on parity of reasons and the fact that the issue stood settled by a prior judgment of the same court in the case of TKS Builders Pvt. Ltd. v Income Tax Officer Ward 25(3) New Delhi. Consequently, the sole submission made by the petitioner's counsel, that only the FAO is competent, could not be accepted. The writ petition and pending applications were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rakesh Jain, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a notice under Section 148 and an order under Section 148A(3) dated June 9, 2025, for the assessment year 2019-20. The petitioner sought to quash these notices and prevent further action based on them. The primary contention raised by the petitioner's counsel was that only a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is competent to initiate proceedings under Section 148, not the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). The respondents were the Income Tax Officer Ward 29(1) and another respondent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is exclusively competent to initiate proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the exclusion of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that only the FAO is competent to initiate proceedings under Section 148, implying the JAO lacks this authority. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not explicitly record arguments, but the court's decision implies they contended that both FAO and JAO are competent. The court relied on a previous judgment of the same High Court in support of its decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~111 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 19176/2025 CM APPL. 79883/2025 CM APPL. 79884/2025 RAKESH JAIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Satyen Sethi, Mr. Arta Trana Panda and Ms. Gargi Sethee Advs. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 29(1) & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Naincy Jain, Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Jr. SCs and Mr. Udit Dad, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

O R D E R %

18.12.

2025

1.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers : “(a) a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other Writ, Order or Direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing and/or setting aside the impugned notice under Section 148 dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) and the order under Section 148A(3) of the Act dated 09.06.2025 for the assessment year 2019-20 (Annexure P-2); (b) a Writ of Prohibition or a Writ in the nature of Prohibition or any other Writ, Order or Direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing Respondents No.1 and 2 not to take any action in furtherance to the Section 148 dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) and the order under Section 148A(3) of the Act dated 09.06.2025 for the assessment year 2019-20 (Annexure P-2) This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/12/2025 at 14:49:29

during the pendency of this petition; (c) To pass ad-interim orders in terms of prayer (b) above and; (d) To grant the Petitioner such further or other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2.

The submission made by Mr. Satyen Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner is primarily, that it is the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), who is competent to initiate proceedings and not the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO).

3.

Suffice to state that the issue is covered insofar as this court is concerned in terms of the judgment of this Court in the case of TKS Builders Pvt. Ltd. v Income Tax Officer Ward 25(3) New Delhi Neutral Citation 2024;DHC;8330-DB.

4.

In other words, both the FAO as well as JAO are competent to initiate proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act).

5.

If that be so, for parity of reasons and the fact that the issue stands settled, the only submission made by Mr. Satyen Sethi cannot be accepted.

6.

The writ petition along with pending applications is dismissed. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J DECEMBER 18, 2025 dd This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/12/2025 at 14:49:29

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →