BHARAT LADDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/12664/2023HC 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 13.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision was based on the established legal position that such notices should be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) and not the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), as supported by the precedents in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Shree Cement Limited. The Tribunal granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to interfere with these judgments. The Tribunal also clarified that the petitioner did not press other grounds raised in the petition. The petition was disposed of with these directions, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bharat Laddha, 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 the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The judgment acknowledges that the notice was indeed issued by the JAO. The petitioner relied on previous decisions in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of 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. The revenue acknowledged the current legal position but sought liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is valid? Assessee's contention: The notice under Section 148 is invalid as it was issued by the JAO and not the FAO. This is supported by the decisions in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of 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. Revenue's contention: While acknowledging the current legal position as established by the cited cases, 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. 12664/2023 Bharat Laddha S/o Kailash Chandra Laddha, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Laddha Bhawan, Maheshwari Mohalla Hurda (Bhilwara) 31022, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhilwara, Kawa Khera Chouraha, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara, Bhilwara, Rajasthan 311001. ----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 02:38:28 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:26:51 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:37681-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-12664/2023]

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 13.04.2023 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 10-MohitTak/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 26/08/2025 at 02:38:28 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:26:51 AM)

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →