OM PRAKASH SHARMA vs. ADDITIONAL CIT RANGE-1

PDF · subscribers
CW/17285/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:40766-DB11 September 2025Author: PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, SANDEEP TANEJA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated June 19, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court found merit in the petitioner's submission that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), aligning with the precedents cited by the petitioner. The Court acknowledged the revenue's submission regarding the pending SLP in the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case. To balance the interests, the Court quashed the notice with liberty to the revenue to revive it if the Apex Court's decision in the pending SLP impacts the validity of such notices. The operative direction was to quash the notice and dispose of the petition, keeping open the rights and contentions of the parties.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Om Prakash Sharma, challenged a notice dated June 19, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondents, including the Additional CIT Range-1, Bikaner, and the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (National Faceless Assessment Centre), were arrayed as parties. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the judgment. The procedural history involves the issuance of the Section 148 notice and the subsequent challenge by the petitioner before the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is valid, or if it must be issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the JAO and not the FAO, which is contrary to the established legal position. The petitioner relied on the judgments in 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 Contentions: The revenue acknowledged that the notice was issued by the charged JAO. Counsel for the revenue stated that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been filed in the Apex Court regarding the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, and notice has been issued. The revenue requested that if the Apex Court interferes with the aforementioned judgments, they should be granted liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148.

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:40766-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17285/2025 Om Prakash Sharma S/o Shri Sahdev Sharma, Aged About 52 Years, R/o House No. 929, Ast No. 09, Gurbax Colony, Patiala, Panjab. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Additional Cit Range-1, Bikaner. 2. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (National Faceless Assessment Centre), 2Nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi - 110003 3. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Cbdt Headquarters North Block (Department Of Revenue), New Delhi - 110001 4. Income Tax Officer, Ito Ward 1, Kachari Road, Sri Ganganagar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sharad Kothari For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order 11/09/2025

1.

One of the primary grounds raised is that notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been issued by (Uploaded on 15/09/2025 at 11:58:59 AM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:16:42 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40766-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-17285/2025] Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another and Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others.

4.

Shri Bissa submitted 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.

5.

Therefore, keeping open rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 19.06.2025 (Annexure-2) issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.

6.

Petition is disposed of.

7.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SANDEEP TANEJA), J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 9-Ravi Khandelwal Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 15/09/2025 at 11:58:59 AM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:16:42 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 →