Alok Kumar Lodha v. Dgit (Inv.) Rajasthan, Income-Tax Department, Ncrbuilding, Statue Circle, Jaipur.building, Statue Circle, Jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13481/2025 Alok Kumar Lodha S/o K.c. Jain, F-24 A, Hauz Khas Enclave,Green Park Market, South West Delhi 110016, Delhi-India. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Dgit (Inv.) Rajasthan, Income-Tax Department, NcrBuilding, Statue Circle, Jaipur.Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Income TaxDepartment, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, JaipurDepartment, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur 3. Assisstant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-4,Income Tax Department, Ncr Building, Statue Circle,JaipurIncome Tax Department, Ncr Building, Statue Circle,Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner: Mr. P.K. Kasliwal with Mr. Priyesh Kasliwal & Ms. Monika Kachhawaha For Respondents: Mr. Sarvesh Jain HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 09/09/2025 Order 1.Mr. Jain, who appears on advance copy, agrees withMr. Kasliwal that one of the grounds raised certainly is covered bya judgment of this Court. 2.Ground referred to is that the notice dated 21[st] March 2024under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issuedby a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not FacelessAssessing Officer (FAO) and this Court in the case of ShreeCement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others[1] following Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income TaxOfficer & Another[2]and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs.Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2)[3], hasheld that such a notice will be bad and not valid. 3.At the same time, Mr. Jain states that in HexawareTechnologies Ltd. (supra), Revenue has preferred a SpecialLeave Petition and notice has been issued. Counsel states that inview of the law as it stands today, Court may grant the prayer ofpetitioner but in case the Apex Court interferes with judgment inHexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer(supra) or Shree Cement Limited (supra), then Revenue shouldbe given liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 ofthe Act. 4.Mr. Kasliwal states that in view of the above, for the present,petitioner will reserve his right to raise other grounds at anappropriate stage. 5.Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties,we quash and set aside notice dated 21[st] March 2024 issued underSection 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.6.Petition disposed. 7.Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also standdisposed. 8.Since we have held that the notice issued under Section 148of the Act itself is not valid, the consequential assessment orderdated 25[th] February 2025 cannot be sustained. The same is alsoquashed and set aside. 1DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported)22025 SCCOnLine Raj 33863[2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)22025 SCCOnLine Raj 33863[2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) 9.Mr. Kasliwal’s statement that application to withdraw the appeal will be filed within two weeks, is accepted. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N.GANDHI/RAJAT/35