Nikhil Jain vs Income Tax Officer ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 13347 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 13347 Raj
Judgement Date : 17 September, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Nikhil Jain vs Income Tax Officer ... on 17 September, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:41559-DB]

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                          JODHPUR
                      D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12413/2024

    Nikhil Jain S/o Sunganti Lal Jain, Aged About 38 Years, R/o-
    1338 A, Sector 5, Hiran Magri, Udaipur, Rajasthan - 313002.
                                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                                Versus
    Income Tax Officer, Ito, Ward-2(1), Udp, Aaykar Bhawan, Rajast,
    Subcity Centre, Savina, Udaipur, Rajasthan, 313001.
                                                                                ----Respondent


For Petitioner                       :     Mr. Pranav Bharadwaj
For Respondent                       :     Mr. K.K. Bissa



          HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM
                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Order

17/09/2025

1. Mr. Bissa, who appears on advance copy, agrees with

Mr. Bharadwaj that one of the grounds raised certainly is covered

by a judgment of this Court.

2. Ground referred to is that the notice dated 11.04.2023 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

TaxOfficer & 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.

1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) 2 2025 SCCOnLine Raj 3386 3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)

(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 10:32:22 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41559-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-12413/2024]

3. At the same time, Mr. 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.

4. Mr. Bharadwaj states that in view of the above, for the

present, petitioner will reserve its 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 11.04.2023 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.

                                   (RAVI CHIRANIA),J                                             (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ
                                    24-pooja/-

(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 10:32:22 AM)