Jodhpur, October 13 (Daily Kiran): The Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur Bench) has set aside a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 and the assessment order passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the grounds that the notice was issued by an unauthorised officer. However, the court granted the department liberty to reissue the notice under certain conditions.
A division bench of Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Anup Singhvi delivered the judgment while hearing a writ petition filed by Jodhpur resident Manoj Kumar Jain. The court quashed the notice dated March 13, 2025, and the assessment order dated September 11, 2025, issued by the Income Tax Department.
Notice Issued by Wrong Authority
Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Advocate (CA) Prateek Gattani argued that the reassessment notice under Section 148 should have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer as per law, but was instead issued by a jurisdictional assessing officer, rendering it invalid and without authority. Consequently, the subsequent assessment order was also legally untenable.
Department’s Argument Rejected
Representing the Income Tax Department, Advocate Sunil Bhandari contended that the assessee had participated in the assessment proceedings without raising any jurisdictional objection and, therefore, could not challenge it later. He cited Section 124 of the Income Tax Act, which bars jurisdictional challenges after 30 days from the issuance of notice under Section 142(1).
However, the court disagreed with the department’s argument, observing that jurisdictional issues can be raised at any stage. The bench noted that in the Sharda Devi Chhajed vs Income Tax Officer case, a similar issue had been decided by a coordinate bench of the same court even after the assessment proceedings were completed.
Court’s Directions
The High Court held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid, agreeing with the petitioner’s counsel. It quashed both the March 13, 2025, notice and the September 11, 2025, assessment order, while allowing the department conditional liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court intervenes in related cases.
The court further clarified that all rights and arguments of the parties remain open, and that the petitioner had not waived any other grounds in the case.