Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Raju Ram vs Union Of India (2026:Rj-Jd:15125-Db) on 2 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:15125-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16565/2021
Raju Ram S/o Natha Ram Jat, Aged About 74 Years, Mundo Ki
Dhani, Mehram Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Department Of
Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India,
New Delhi.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Finance Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Jodhpur, Aaykar
Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur.
4. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Jodhpur, Aaykar
Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur.
5. The Sub Registrar-III, Jodhpur, Registration and Stamp
Department, High Court Premises, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Bhansali
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa
Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order (Oral)
02/04/2026
Per: Arun Monga, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the
assessment order dated 29.09.2021 passed under Section
144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, “1961 Act”),
whereby the penalty proceedings were initiated for non-
compliance of provisions of Section 139(1) of the 1961 Act and
the petitioner was held liable to pay the amount of
Rs.72,41,665/-.
2. The facts of the present case as stated in the petition are
that the petitioner is a 74-year-old individual engaged primarily in
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 12:04:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:12:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15125-DB] (2 of 6) [CW-16565/2021]
agricultural activities for his livelihood. He owns agricultural lands
situated at various locations in the districts of Jodhpur and
Barmer, which were acquired between the years 1967 and 2014.
His income has mainly been derived from agricultural produce,
along with minor dairy activities and occasional financial
assistance extended to local farmers. As his income largely
consisted of agricultural earnings, which are exempt from
taxation, and did not exceed the prescribed taxable limit, no
income tax returns were filed by him.
2.1 On 24.09.2021, the petitioner received a notice dated
20.09.2021 issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act,
1961, requiring compliance within the stipulated period. The
notice also enclosed a copy of a notice under Section 148 dated
24.03.2020. In response, the petitioner submitted a reply within
the prescribed time and denied receipt of any prior notice under
Section 148 of the 1961 Act while also filing his return of income
on 27.09.2021. Along with the return, he furnished documents
including land records, bank statements, and purchase deeds.
2.2 Subsequently, an assessment order dated 29.09.2021 was
passed under Sections 144 and 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In the said order, it was recorded that sufficient evidence
regarding the petitioner’s agricultural income and the source of
investment in certain immovable properties was not furnished.
Consequently, a tax liability of Rs. 72,41,665/- was determined
against the petitioner.
2.3 Hence, the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the entire
reassessment proceedings are vitiated for want of jurisdiction,
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 12:04:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:12:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15125-DB] (3 of 6) [CW-16565/2021]
inasmuch as the foundational notice dated 24.03.2020 under
Section 148 of the 1961 Act was never served upon the petitioner.
It is submitted that service of notice under Section 148 of the
1961 Act is a condition precedent for assumption of jurisdiction
under Section 147 of the 1961 Act, and not a mere procedural
formality. In the absence of proper service, the impugned
assessment order dated 29.09.2021 is rendered wholly without
jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed.
3.1 Learned counsel further submits that, without prejudice to
the petitioner’s claim that after compliance with the notice under
Section 142(1) dated 20.09.2021, the assessment could not have
been framed as a best judgment assessment, even if it is assumed
that the respondent authority proceeded under Section 144 of the
Act, it would imply that all three conditions specified in clauses (a)
to (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 144 stood fulfilled; it was
further contended that another illegality, going to the root of the
assessment so framed, is that prior to passing an order under
Section 144, the respondent Assessing Authority was required to
serve a notice in terms of the first proviso to Section 144 calling
upon the petitioner to show cause, on a date and time specified
therein, as to why the assessment should not be completed to the
best of its judgment, and that failure to issue such notice vitiates
the entire assessment, rendering it liable to be quashed and set
aside.
3.2 It is further argued that the petitioner had specifically
disputed the stamp duty valuation and requested a reference to
the Valuation Officer in terms of Section 56(2)(vii)(c) and Section
50C of the 1961 Act. The respondent authority, however, failed to
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 12:04:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:12:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15125-DB] (4 of 6) [CW-16565/2021]
consider such request and proceeded to adopt the impugned
valuation in a mechanical manner, thereby depriving the petitioner
of a fair determination of market value. It is submitted that such
non-consideration of a statutory claim amounts to denial of
reasonable opportunity and renders the assessment arbitrary and
illegal.
3.3 Learned counsel also contends that the action of the stamp
authorities in reassessing the value of the property after
registration is unsustainable in law, particularly in view of patent
inconsistencies in the site inspection report, which erroneously
describes the land as irrigated despite revenue records showing it
to be “barani”. The subsequent demand raised under the Stamp
Act is thus arbitrary and based on an impermissible change of
opinion.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the writ
petition and advances arguments in line with the grounds set out
in their reply.
5. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. Our attention has been drawn to para 7 of the reply filed by
the respondent wherein the stand taken is that the notice under
Section 148 of the 1961 Act dated 24.03.2020 was served on the
petitioner, who is strictly an agriculturist and currently about 75
years old, through electronic means generated, issued and served
via Income Tax Business Application (ITBA).
7. Albeit, it is reflected from the stand taken that the notice
was dispatched electronically through the ITBA and was also
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 12:04:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:12:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15125-DB] (5 of 6) [CW-16565/2021]
additionally sent through registered post on 24.03.2020; however,
there is no proof of its delivery on the petitioner.
8. No tracking report has been either appended with the reply
or relied upon by the Assessment Officer in the impugned order.
9. In this context reference may be had to Bombay High Court
judgment, with which we are in agreement with, in Harjeet Suraj
Prakash Girotra vs. Union of India & Ors. 1. Paragraphs 8 and
9 thereof, being apposite, are reproduced herein.
“8. In terms of section 148(1) of the Act, thus, before making
reassessment under section 147, the Assessing Officer had to serve on the
assessee the notice requiring him to furnish a return. Service of notice is
necessary and not its mere issuance. In terms of provisions contained in
section 149 of the Act, such notice could have been issued latest by
31.03.2018 and dispatched it through post for its service to the petitioner at
the address given by her in the PAN card. This postal dispatch, however, was
returned by the postal department with a remark “left”. The Assessing
Officer proceeded on the basis of such notice and its return and completed
the assessment after issuing notices under section 143(2) of the Act. The
question is could he have done so?
9. It is consistent view of the Courts that not mere issuance of notice of
reopening of assessment but its service on the assessee, that too, within the
time frame envisaged under section 149 of the Act is necessary for a valid
reopening of assessment. In case of Y. Narayan Chetty & Anr. vs. Income
Tax Officer, Nellore & Ors. Reported in (1959) 35 ITR 388, the Supreme
Court in the context of Income Tax Act, 1922 had observed as under:
“5. The first point raised by Mr. Sastri is that the proceedings taken
by respondent 1 under s.34 of the Act are invalid because the notice
required to be issued under the said section has not been issued
against the assessees contemplated therein. In the present case the
Income Tax Officer has purported to act under s.34(1)(a) against the
three firms. The said sub-section provides inter alia that “if the
Income Tax Officer has reason to believe that by reason of the
omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return of his
income under Section 22 for any year or to disclose fully and truly
all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year, income,
profits or gains chargeable to income-tax has been underassessed”,
he may, within the time prescribed, “serve on the assessee a notice
containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in
the notice under sub-section (2) of Section 22 and may proceed to
reassess such income, profits or gains”. The argument is that the
service of the requisite notice on the assessee is a condition
precedent to the validity of any reassessment made under Section 34;
and if a valid notice is not issued as required, proceedings taken by
the Income Tax Officer in pursuance of an invalid notice and
consequent orders of reassessment passed by him would be void and
inoperative. In our opinion, this contention is well-founded. The
notice prescribed by Section 34 cannot be regarded as a more
procedural requirement; it is only if the said notice is served on the
assessee as required that the Income Tax Officer would be justified in
taking proceedings against him. If no notice is issued or if the notice1 Writ Petition No. 513/2019, Decided on 16/7/2018.
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 12:04:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:12:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15125-DB] (6 of 6) [CW-16565/2021]issued is shown to be invalid then the validity of the proceedings
taken by the Income Tax Officer without a notice or in pursuance of
an invalid notice would be illegal and void. That is the view taken by
the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts in the CIT v. Ramsukh Motilal
and R.K. Das & Co. v. CIT and we think that that view is right.”
10. We thus find that no effective service was caused to the
petitioner to enable him to place the relevant material on record in
response to the notice which leads to passing of the final
assessment order.
11. It is undisputed that an appellate remedy is available, the
petitioner finds themselves at a disadvantage. This arises from the
fact that the relevant material was not placed on record before the
Assessing Officer, and consequently, the petitioner is unable to
press the petition on its merits due to the absence of sufficient
evidence. The Assessing Officer, while passing the impugned order,
did not consider or deal with this material.
12. In totality of circumstances impugned assessment order is
29.09.2021 is quashed and set aside with liberty to the petitioner
to respond to the notice along with the relevant material.
Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the Assessment
Officer for passing fresh orders after issuing notice in accordance
with law.
13. The other prayers made in the petition are not pressed by
learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the remand order
passed by this Court.
14. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (ARUN MONGA),J
54-suraj/-
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 12:04:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:12:12 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)