Rohit Kumar Jain v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 61(1) Delhi

Delhi HC5 Dec 2025W.P.(C)/18495/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC, W.P.(C) 18495/2025 & CM APPL. 76713-14/2025, Rohit Kumar Jain v. ACIT Circle 61(1) Delhi, decided 05.12.2025 (V. Kameswar Rao & Mini Pushkarna, JJ.). Reassessment for AY 2021-22; notices under Sections 148A(1), 148A(3) and 148; plea that JAO not FAO has jurisdiction (T.K.S. Builders, 2024:DHC:8330-DB, relied on); petition closed as not pressed with liberty to plead before AO; non-supply of material to be considered by AO per law; CM applications infructuous; no costs; no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed as not pressed with liberty to the petitioner to take all pleas on facts and in law before the Assessing Officer; AO to consider any request for supply of material in accordance with law; pending CM applications disposed of as infructuous. ¶¶22

Rohit Kumar Jain Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 61(1) Delhi — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), rather than the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), has jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings. +1 more

¶¶20

Court's answer

The Court observed that the question whether the JAO or the FAO has jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings stands settled by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2024:DHC:8330-DB); the point was not decided by this Court as the petition was not pressed.

¶¶21

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition was closed as not pressed, counsel for the petitioner having stated that the grounds urged in the writ petition would be canvassed before the Assessing Officer for his consideration.

¶¶22

Key takeaways

The petitioner is at liberty to take all pleas, both on facts and in law, before the Assessing Officer.ratio¶¶23
If a request for supply of material is made, the Assessing Officer shall consider the plea of non-supply of material in accordance with law.ratio¶¶24
The pending applications (CM APPL. 76713-14/2025) were disposed of as having become infructuous.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (V. Kameswar Rao and Mini Pushkarna, JJ.) in W.P.(C) 18495/2025: Writ petition seeking certiorari/prohibition against reassessment proceedings for AY 2021-22 — impugned notice dated 27.03.2025 under Section 148A(1), order dated 25.06.2025 under Section 148A(3), and notice dated 25.06.2025 under Section 148 — after arguments, counsel for the petitioner stated the grounds urged would be canvassed before the Assessing Officer, and the petition was closed as not pressed. Petitioner granted liberty to take all pleas on facts and in law before the AO; if a request for supply of material is made, the AO shall consider the plea of non-supply in accordance with law. The Court noted that the contention that the JAO, not the Faceless AO, has jurisdiction to initiate reassessment stands settled by a Coordinate Bench in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO Ward 25(3) New Delhi, 2024:DHC:8330-DB, but did not decide the point. Pending CM applications disposed of as infructuous.

¶1

$~27

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 18495/2025 & CM APPL. 76713-14/2025

¶3

ROHIT KUMAR JAIN

¶4

.....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr Sumit Lalchandani, Advocate.

¶6

Versus

¶7

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 61(1) DELHI

¶8

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, SSC Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Mr. Rahul Singh, JSCs and Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocate

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA O R D E R % 05.12.2025

¶10

This petition has been filed by the petitioner, with the following

¶11

prayers:-

¶12

“a) Issue a writ of and/or order and or directions in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing impugned notice dated 27.03.2025 issued under Section 148A(1) of the Act and the impugned order dated 25.06.2025 passed under Section 148A(3) of the Act; and the impugned notice dated 25.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act;

¶13

b) Issue a writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of Prohibition commanding Respondent to forebear from giving effect to and/or taking any

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/12/2025 at 13:21:41

¶16

step whatsoever pursuant to and/or in furtherance of the said purported notice under Section 148 of the Act and/or in any proceedings initiated thereunder for the AY 2021-22, and grant stay on the reassessment proceedings;

¶17

c) Issue any other Writ, order, or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶18

d) To dispense with from filing certified copies of Annexures.

¶19

e) To allow the writ petition with cost in favor of the Petitioner and against the Respondent.”

¶20

One of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) does not have the jurisdiction to initiate the reassessment proceedings. According to him, it is the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), who has the jurisdiction.

¶21

The issue in this regard is settled by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer Ward 25(3) New Delhi, 2024:DHC:8330-DB.

¶22

After some arguments, Mr. Lalchandani, appearing for the petitioner states that though he has urged other grounds in the writ petition, he shall not press this petition as the petitioner shall canvass these grounds before the Assessing Officer (AO) for his consideration. If that be so, this petition is closed.

¶23

We make it clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty to take all pleas both on facts and in law, before the Assessing Officer.

¶24

Insofar as the plea with regard to the non-supply of material by the AO, it goes without saying that if such a request is made, the AO shall consider the plea in accordance with law.

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/12/2025 at 13:21:41

¶27

The pending applications are also disposed of as having become infructuous.

¶28

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶29

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶30

DECEMBER 05, 2025 M

¶31

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/12/2025 at 13:21:41

Rohit Kumar Jain v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 61(1) Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Kumar Jain v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 61(1) Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Delhi Police and Ors. Vs Akshika and Ors.

Bala Rani Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Nikhil Yadav Vs Reserve Bank of India and Ors.

Anand and Company Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Ex. Major General M.S. Jaswal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Atul Sharma Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Ex. Major General Ms Jaswal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ravi Prakash Mehrotra Vs Delhi Development Authority through the Vice Chairman & Anr.

Commissioner of Income Tax, International TAXATION-1, New Delhi Vs Clifford Chance Pte Ltd.

Hover Automotive India Private Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(1), New Delhi & Ors.

Satya Pal Singh Vs M/S Globe Commodities Limited

Pr. Commissioner Ofincome Tax -21 Vs M/S. Remfry & Sagar

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -21 Vs M/S. Remfry & Sagar

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -21. Vs M/S.Remfry & Sagar