Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sohan Raj Surana vs Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 17 September, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:41560-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2163/2025
Sohan Raj Surana S/o Late Shri Son Raj Surana, Aged About 84
Years, Address At Oympic Complex, Opp. Sangh Petrol Pump,
Jodhpur-342001
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central), Jaipur
Having Its Office At New Central Revenue Building,
Statute Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur-
302005.
2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-I,
Jodhpur Having Its Office At Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C
Road, Jodhpur-342010
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Ranka, through V.C.
Mr. KPS Deora
Mr. Harshvardhan Singh
For Respondents : Mr. K.K. Bissa
HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA
Order
17/09/2025
1. At the outset, Mr. Ranka 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.
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 10:31:26 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41560-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-2163/2025]
2. Mr. 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.
3. Ground referred to is that the notice dated 24.03.2024 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. 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. Ranka states that in view of the above, for the present,
petitioner will reserve his right to raise other grounds at an
appropriate stage.
1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported)
2 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 3386
3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 10:31:26 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41560-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-2163/2025]
6. Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties,
we quash and set aside notice dated 24.03.2024 issued under
Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.
7. Petition disposed.
8. Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed.
9. We are informed that after the petition was filed, an
assessment order dated 27.03.2025 has already been passed.
Since we have held that the notice issued under Section 148 of
the Act itself is not valid, the consequential assessment order
cannot be sustained. The same is also quashed and set aside.
(RAVI CHIRANIA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ
27-pooja/-
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 10:31:26 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
