YOGESH MEHTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/12518/2023HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:37681-DB22 August 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM, SANDEEP TANEJA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated 12.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on the established legal position, as discussed in the cited cases of Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Shree Cement Limited, which held that notices under Section 148 should be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) and not the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). The Tribunal granted the petitioner's prayer, quashing the notice. However, in deference to the revenue's submission, the Tribunal kept open all rights and contentions of both parties and granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The Tribunal also noted that the petitioner did not press other grounds raised in the petition. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Yogesh Mehta, challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent is the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Barmer. The notice in question was dated 12.04.2023. The petitioner relied on several High Court judgments to support their argument regarding the invalidity of a notice issued by a JAO instead of an FAO. The revenue acknowledged the current legal position but sought liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to alter the established precedent.

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 invalid? (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 established legal principles. They relied on the decisions 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. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue acknowledged that the notice was issued by the JAO. While conceding that the court might grant the petitioner's prayer based on the current law, the revenue requested liberty to revive the notice under Section 148 if the Supreme Court were to overturn 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:37681-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12518/2023 Yogesh Mehta S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Mehta, Aged About 57 Years, R/o C/o L.n. Mehta (Advocate), Goidani Para, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan, India. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Barmer, Mahaveer Nagar, Opposite Stadium, Barmer, Barmer, Rajasthan 344001. ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, through V.C. Mr. Jaideep Singh Saluja For Respondent : Mr. K.K. Bissa HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order 22/08/2025

1.

Counsel for petitioner states that one of the primary grounds raised is that notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO).

2.

Indisputably, the notice to petitioner has been issued by the JAO and not FAO.

3.

Counsel for petitioner is correct in submitting that this issue has been extensively dealt with in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1) (2)1, Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others3. 1 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) 2 2025 SCCOnLine Raj 3386 3 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) (Uploaded on 26/08/2025 at 02:35:54 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:21:46 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:37681-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-12518/2023]

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 all rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 12.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.

6.

In view of above, we also clarify that petitioner did not press other grounds.

7.

Petition disposed.

8.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ 7-MohitTak/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 26/08/2025 at 02:35:54 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:21:46 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 →