Asha Ram vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 - ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 11726 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 11726 Raj
Judgement Date : 27 August, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Asha Ram vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 - ... on 27 August, 2025

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:38387-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16252/2025

Asha Ram S/o Shri Surja Ram, Aged About 77 Years, Ward No.
3, 17 M L Pathan Wala, 11 Lnp, Udyog Vihar, Ganganagar,
Rajasthan.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.       Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 - Jodhpur, (Pcit
         Jodhpur), Aayakar Bhawan Paota C Road, Jodhpur
2.       Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, (National E-
         Assessment        Center),       2Nd Floor,          E-Ramp,    Jawaharlal
         Nehru Stadium Delhi - 110003
3.       Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Cbdt Headquarters North
         Block (Department Of Revenue), New Delhi - 110001
4.       Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax - Range 1,
         Aaykar Bhawan, Rani Bazar, Bikaner - 334001
5.       Income Tax Officer, Ito Ward 1, Sri Ganganagar
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Sharad Kothari
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. K.K. Bissa



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order

27/08/2025

1. Learned counsel for the parties submits that the controversy

involved in this case is squarely covered by the order dated

12.08.2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in D.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.5745/2025 titled as "Gaze Fashion Trade

Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax". The order

dated 12.08.2025 reads as under :-

[2025:RJ-JD:38387-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-16252/2025]

"1. At the outset, respondent is seeking ten days' time to file reply, but we are not inclined to grant any further time for the reason being counsel for revenue was present before this Court on 11 th March 2025 when interim order was granted to petitioner. Even on 28th July 2025 when interim order was continued, counsel for revenue had sought one week's to file reply. That one week's time got over on 4 th August 2025.

2. One of the primary grounds raised is that notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO).

3. Indisputably, the notice to petitioner has been issued by the charged JAO and not FAO.

4. Mr. Jhanwar, senior counsel for petitioner is correct in submitting that this issue has been extensively dealt with in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2)1, Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another2 and Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-

Tax & Others3.

5. Shri Bissa submitted 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.

6. Therefore, keeping open rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 19.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.

7. Petition disposed.

[2025:RJ-JD:38387-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-16252/2025]

8. Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed."

2. The present civil writ petition is disposed of on the same

terms.

(SANDEEP TANEJA), J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

123-deep/-