VIVEK JAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/12419/2024HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:35979-DB12 August 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM, SANDEEP TANEJA3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the notices and order were bad in law. The Court acknowledged the submissions of both parties, particularly the revenue's concession based on established precedents like Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and Sharda Devi Chhajer. The Court found the revenue's request for liberty to revive the notice in case of a future change in the Apex Court's stance to be fair. Consequently, the notice dated 10.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the order dated 10.04.2023 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to alter the legal position established by the cited judgments. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vivek Jain, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur challenging notices and an order issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). The petitioner contended that these actions should have been taken by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). As a precautionary measure due to the expiring limitation period, the petitioner had also filed an appeal. The petitioner stated that if the writ petition was allowed, the appeal would become infructuous and would be withdrawn. The respondent, Income Tax Officer, acknowledged the prevailing legal position that such notices must be issued by a FAO, not a JAO, citing relevant High Court and Supreme Court decisions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices and orders issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) are valid, or if they must be issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically Section 148 and Section 148A(d). Assessee's Contention: The notices and impugned order are invalid as they were issued by the JAO and not the FAO. Reliance was placed on the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(1)(2)1, Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another2, and Shree Cement Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Others3, which hold that notices issued by JAOs are not valid. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, conceded that in view of the current legal position established by the aforementioned judgments, the notice under Section 148 of the Act issued by the JAO is bad in law. The revenue also sought liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chajjer, or Shree Cement Ltd.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2025:RJ-JD:35979-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12419/2024 Vivek Jain S/o Jitendra Kumar Jain, Aged About 36 Years, R/o- House No.234, Opp. Play Ground, Teh - Jhadol Village - Magwas, Udaipur, Rajasthan -313702 ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward-2(1), UDP, Aaykar Bhawan, Rajast, Subcity Centre, Savina, Udaipur, Rajasthan, 313001 ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Prakul Khurana For Respondent : Mr. K.K. Bissa HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order 12/08/2025

1.

Tax Officer & Another2 and Shree Cement Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Others3, the notices have to be set aside. Counsel states that if Court allows 1 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) 2 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 3386 3 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) (Uploaded on 13/08/2025 at 10:57:24 AM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:21:20 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:35979-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-12419/2024] the petition, then the appeal would become infructuous and petitioner will withdraw the appeal within two weeks of this order being uploaded.

2.

Counsel for respondent Mr. K.K. Bissa, in fairness and as an officer of the Court, states that in view of the law, as it stands today, originating from judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) followed by this Court in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra) as also in Shree Cement Ltd. (supra), it is clear that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) has to be issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer whereas, admittedly in this case it is the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer who has issued the notice. Therefore, as the law stands today, notice is bad in law.

3.

Mr. Bissa further 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 Chajjer (supra) or Shree Cement Ltd. (supra), then Revenue should be given liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act.

4.

In our view that is a very fair request. Therefore, we make the Rule returnable forthwith. The notice dated 10.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act and order dated 10.04.2023 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act are quashed and set aside with liberty as prayed.

5.

Petition disposed. (Uploaded on 13/08/2025 at 10:57:24 AM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:21:20 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:35979-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-12419/2024]

6.

As for withdrawal of appeal, Counsel submits that he shall address the communication within two weeks from this order being uploaded for withdrawal of appeal.

7.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ 28-MohitTak/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 13/08/2025 at 10:57:24 AM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:21:20 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 →