Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shri Manoj Kumar Jain vs Income-Tax Officer ... on 10 October, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:44573-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20145/2025
Shri Manoj Kumar Jain S/o Shri Dharmnarain, Aged About 46
Years, Resident Of 133, Opposite Dev Nagar, Street No.3, Shyam
Nagar, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) - 342003.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Income-Tax Officer, Ward -3(1), Jodhpur, Aayakar
Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) - 342010 E-
[email protected]
2. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 3,
Jodhpur, Office Of Income Department, Aayakar Bhawan,
Paota C Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) - 342010
3. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Assessment Unit,
Income-Tax Department, 2Nd Floor, Jawaharlal Nehru
Stadium, New Delhi - 110001
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Gattani.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Bhandari.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI
ORDER
10/10/2025
1. One of the grounds raised in this matter is that notice under
Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for
initiating re-assessment proceedings was issued by the
Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing
Officer (FAO) and therefore, notice itself is bad in law. Counsel
submitted that consequently the assessment order passed is also
bad in law.
(Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 06:04:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44573-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-20145/2025]
2. Counsel for Revenue Shri Bhandari submitted that assessee
participated in assessment proceedings without raising this ground
and therefore today after assessment order is passed, he cannot
challenge issue of jurisdiction on the ground that notice was to be
issued by the FAO and not JAO. He says that Section 124 of the
Act bars raising of issue of jurisdiction after 30 days of issuance of
notice under Section 142(1).
3. We disagree with Shri Bhandari because jurisdictional issue
can be raised at any stage.
4. Counsel for assessee states that judgment of Sharda Devi
Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another passed by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court on the same issue was pronounced
only after assessment proceedings were concluded and therefore
assessment proceedings have to be set aside.
5. We agree with assessee. We find that in Sharda Devi
Chhajer (supra), Court has relied upon the judgment of Bombay
High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant
Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 15(1)(2) which we are
informed is under challenge before the Supreme Court by way of
Special Leave Petition and notice has been issued. Counsel for
Revenue 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 vs. Assistant Commisioner of Income-Tax & Others,
then Revenue should be given liberty to revive the notice issued
under Section 148 of the Act.
(Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 06:04:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44573-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-20145/2025]
6. Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties,
we quash and set aside notice dated 13th March, 2025 (Annexure-
1) issued under Section 148 of the Act and assessment order
dated 11.09.2025 (Annexure-5) passed under Section 147 of the
Act with liberty as prayed.
7. In view of above, we also clarify that petitioner did not press
other grounds.
8. Petition disposed.
9. Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed.
(ANUROOP SINGHI),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
213-Zeeshan
(Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 06:04:11 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
