Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Aruna Choudhary vs Income-Tax Officer ... on 16 September, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:41191-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8976/2023
Aruna Choudhary W/o Late Shri Kauram Godara, Aged About 61
Years, Resident Of Opposite Masuriya Colony, House No. 233B,
Opposite Masuriya Police Choki, Pal Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)-
342001.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C
Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)- 342010.
2. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Jodhpur-1
Aayakar Bhawan, Paota-C Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
3. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax, New Central
Revenue Building, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Gattani, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA
Judgment
16/09/2025
1. At the outset, Mr. Prateek Gattani states that the legal
ground that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act,
1961 is not valid because it has been issued by Jurisdictional
Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO),
has not been taken. Counsel states in the Court that petition is yet
to be admitted and if the Court insists, petitioner will take out an
application for adding grounds.
2. Mr. K.K. Bissa states that this Court has taken a view that
such a notice will be invalid and he will not insist on formal
amendment in the petition.
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 11:47:49 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41191-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-8976/2023]
3. Ground referred to is that the notice dated 02.04.2023 under
Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued by a
Jurisdictional 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.
4. At the same time, Mr. K.K. Bissa 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.
5. Mr. Prateek Gattani states that in view of the above, for the
present, petitioner will reserve his right to raise other grounds at
an appropriate stage.
6. Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties,
we quash and set aside notice dated 02.04.2023 issued under
Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.
7. Petition disposed.
1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported)
2 2025 SCC OnLine 3386
3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225(Bombay)
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 11:47:49 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41191-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-8976/2023]
8. Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed.
9. In case, if any re-assessment order is passed, the same will
also stand quashed and set aside.
(RAVI CHIRANIA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ
15-a.asopa/-
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 11:47:49 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
