##PAGE1##

[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 01/05/2026 at 05:24:35 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 01/05/2026 at 05:24:35 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 ha