[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Om Prakash vs Union Of India (2025:Rj-Jd:37688-Db) on 22 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:37688-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6705/2025
Om Prakash S/o Shri Babulal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Bass
Jamasar, Tausar, Nagaur 341001
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance,
North Block, New Delhi 110001
2. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Udaipur, Aayakar
Bhawan, Subcity Centre, Savina, Hiran Magri, Udaipur
313001
3. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Jodhpur, Aayakar
Bhawan, Lal Maidan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur 342006
4. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Nagaur
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Tapendra Sankhla
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Nimesh Suthar
For Respondents Mr. Sunil Bhandari
No.2,3&4
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA
Order
22/08/2025
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.
(Downloaded on 26/08/2025 at 09:43:19 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37688-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-6705/2025]
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 & Another1 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) 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 &
1 2025 SCCOnLine Raj 3386
2 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)
(Downloaded on 26/08/2025 at 09:43:19 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37688-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-6705/2025]
Others3, then Revenue should be given liberty to revive the notice
issued under Section 148 of the Act.
6. Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties,
we quash and set aside notice dated 30 th March 2024 issued under
Section 148 of the Act, notice dated 13 th March 2024 issued under
Section148A(b) of the Act, notice dated 30 th June 2024 issued
under Section143(2) read with Section 147 of the Act and
assessment order dated 25.02.2025 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.
(SANDEEP TANEJA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ
24-divyaP/-
3 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported)
(Downloaded on 26/08/2025 at 09:43:19 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link