JUGAL KISHORE KHANDELWAL SON OF LATE SHRI DAMODAR LAL KHATORIA v. INCOME TAX OFFICER
CW/15006/2024 · 2025-09-03
K R Shriram, Maneesh Sharma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 44469 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 44469 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:35316-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15006/2024 Jugal Kishore Khandelwal S/o Late Shri Damodar Lal Khatoria, Aged About 74 Years, R/o House No. 626, Bala Ji Ka Rasta, Ghat Gate Bazar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur Having its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA
Order 03/09/2025
1. Mr. Pathak, who appears on advance copy, agrees with Mr. Siddharth Ranka that one of the grounds raised certainly is covered by a judgment of this Court.
2. Ground referred to is that the notice dated 31st March 2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Offider (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. 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)
[2025:RJ-JP:35316-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-15006/2024]
3. At the same time, Mr. Pathak 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. Siddharth Ranka states that in view of the above, for the present, petitioner will reserve his 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 31st March 2024 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. We are informed that after the petition was filed, an assessment order dated 31st March 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.
(MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N.Gandhi/Deepa-33