VINOD KUMAR JAIN S/O SATYA NARAYAN JAIN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Facts

The petitioner, Vinod Kumar Jain, challenged a notice dated April 12, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The challenge was based on the ground that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent is the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota. The High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, was hearing the writ petition. The revenue acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the Court.

Held

The High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, quashed and set aside the notice dated April 12, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged that the ground raised by the petitioner regarding the notice being issued by a JAO instead of an FAO was covered by its own judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer for the present. However, it also granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to this notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All other rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

Key Issues

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is invalid? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice dated April 12, 2023, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad and invalid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. This contention is supported by the High Court's judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's Contention: The revenue agreed that one ground was covered by a previous judgment. However, it noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd., and notice had been issued. The revenue requested liberty to revive the notice under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited.