LAXMAN SINGH RAJPUROHIT vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER

Facts

The petitioner, Laxman Singh Rajpurohit, challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and an assessment order passed under Section 148A(3) of the Act, both dated June 19, 2025. The primary contention was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent, Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 01(2), Bikaner, did not dispute that the notice was issued by the JAO. The matter was heard by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur.

Held

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated June 19, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the assessment order dated June 19, 2025, passed under Section 148A(3) of the Act. The decision was based on the established principle that such notices should be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) and not the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), as supported by the cited precedents. The court acknowledged the Revenue's submission regarding a pending Special Leave Petition in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case and granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision impacts the aforementioned judgments. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. The petition was disposed of with this liberty.

Key Issues

1. Whether a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is valid? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The notice under Section 148 was issued by the JAO and not the FAO, which is contrary to established legal principles. Reliance was placed on Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another, and Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others. Revenue's contention: The Revenue acknowledged that the notice was issued by the JAO. While agreeing that the court might grant the petitioner's prayer based on the current legal position, the Revenue requested liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited.