SHREE BHARKA INDIA LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO WARD-1, BHILWARA

PDF · subscribers
CW/7794/2023HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:41959-DB19 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM, SANGEETA SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated July 29, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court followed its own judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which in turn relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that a notice issued by a JAO instead of an FAO is bad in law and not valid. Consequently, the assessment order dated May 29, 2023, which was passed subsequent to the invalid notice, was also quashed and set aside as it could not be sustained. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. The writ petition was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shree Bharka India Ltd., challenged a notice dated July 29, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), rendering it invalid. The respondents, including the Income Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, and Central Board of Direct Taxes, were represented. The Court was informed that an assessment order dated May 29, 2023, had already been passed subsequent to the filing of the writ petition. The revenue acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by existing High Court judgments.

What were the 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 valid? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The notice dated July 29, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is 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 the ground was covered by existing judgments. However, it noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, and notice had been issued by the Apex Court. 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.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2025:RJ-JD:41959-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7794/2023 Shree Bharka India Ltd., Having Its Registered Address At 15/372, Bazar No.2, Bhilwara -311001 Through Its Authorized Director Sandeep Kothari, S/o Chandra Singh Kothari Aged About 42 Years R/o C-59, Khashipuri Bhilwara, Rajasthan- 311001. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer Ito Ward-1, Bhilwara, Kawa Khera Chourha, Shashtri Nagar, Bhilwara Rajasthan 311001. 2. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, National Faceless Assessment Centre, C- Block, 4Th Floor, S.p.m Civic Centre, New Delhi - 110001. 3. Central Broad Of Direct Taxes, Through Chairperson, Type - 7, Bungalow No. 75, New Moti Bagh, New Delhi- 110021. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rajat Sharma, through VC For Respondents : Mr. K.K. Bissa, Mr. G.S. Chouhan HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

Order 19/09/2025

1.

Mr. Bissa, who appears on advance copy, agrees with Mr. Sharma that one of the grounds raised certainly is covered by a judgment of this Court.

2.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 29th July 2022 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) and this Court in the case of Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others1 following Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another2 and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2)3,has held that such a notice will be bad and not valid. 1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) 2 2025 SCCOnLine Raj 3386 3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 01:57:26 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:16:32 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41959-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-7794/2023]

3.

At the same time, Mr. Bissa states that in Hexaware Technologies Ltd.(supra), Revenue has preferred a Special Leave Petition and notice has been issued. Counsel states that in view of the law as it stands today, Court may grant the prayer of petitioner but in case the Apex Court interferes with judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra) or Shree Cement Limited (supra), then Revenue should be given liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act.

4.

Mr. Sharma states that in view of the above, for the present, petitioner will reserve its right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage.

5.

Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 29th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.

6.

We are informed that after the petition was filed, an assessment order dated 29th May 2023 has already been passed. Since we have held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act itself is not valid, the consequential assessment order cannot be sustained. The same is also quashed and set aside.

7.

Petition disposed.

8.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ 17-pooja/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 01:57:26 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:16:32 PM)

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →