KULDEEP CHAND GARGEE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 - JODHPUR

PDF · subscribers
CW/15017/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:35937-DB12 August 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM, SANDEEP TANEJA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that, in view of the law as it currently stands, originating from judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Sharda Devi Chhajer v. The Income Tax Officer & Another, and Shree Cement Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). Since the notice in this case was admittedly issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), it was deemed bad in law. The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated 22.03.2024 issued under Section 148A(b), the order dated 04.04.2024 passed under Section 148A(d), and the notice dated 04.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kuldeep Chand Gargee, challenged notices issued under Section 148A(b) and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notices were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). The respondents, including the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and the National E-Assessment Center, were represented. The case was heard by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. The core of the dispute revolved around the authority competent to issue such notices in the context of faceless assessment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid if issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? (Question of law). The petitioner contended that the notice was bad in law because it was issued by the JAO, not the FAO, citing established legal precedents. The revenue, through its counsel, conceded that as the law currently stands, the notice issued by the JAO is indeed bad in law. The revenue also mentioned that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed against the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and notice had been issued, indicating a potential future change in the legal position.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2025:RJ-JD:35937-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15017/2025 Kuldeep Chand Gargee S/o Kishan Chand, Aged About 70 Years, 1171,1172, Near Gurudwara Sahib, Homeland City-2Nd, Sriganganagar, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 - Jodhpur, (Pcit Jodhpur), Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur 2. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, (National E- Assessment Center), 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, Sri Ganganagar ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sharad Kothari For Respondents : Mr. K.K Bissa HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order 12/08/2025

1.

Counsel for respondents Shri 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. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, circle 15(1) (2)1 followed by this Court in Sharda Devi Chhajer v. The Income Tax Officer & Another2 as also in Shree Cement Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and 1 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) 2 2025 SCC OnLine Raj3386 (Uploaded on 13/08/2025 at 10:19:11 AM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:21:39 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:35937-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-15017/2025] Others3, 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 (FAO) whereas, admittedly in this case it is the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) who has issued the notice. Therefore, as the law stands today, notice is bad in law.

2.

Shri 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 Chhajer (supra) or Shree Cement Limited (supra), then Revenue should be given liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act.

3.

In our view, that is a very fair request. Therefore, we make the Rule returnable forthwith. Notice dated 22.03.2024 issued under Section 148A(b), order dated 04.04.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) as also notice dated 04.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act are all quashed and set aside with liberty as prayed.

4.

Petition disposed.

5.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ 6-divyaP/- 3 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024 dated 05.08.2025(unreported) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 13/08/2025 at 10:19:11 AM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:21:39 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 →