TARUN BANSAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
CW/16233/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:38386-DB27 August 2025Author: PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, SANDEEP TANEJA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, following the order of a Coordinate Bench dated August 12, 2025, in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5745/2025 (Gaze Fashion Trade Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax), quashed and set aside the notice dated March 19, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Court noted that the counsel for the revenue had sought time to file a reply, but it was not granted as the revenue's counsel had been present earlier when an interim order was granted. The petition was disposed of on these terms, keeping open the rights and contentions of both parties. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Tarun Bansal, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The respondents are various income tax authorities, including the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The revenue sought time to file a reply. The High Court noted that a similar issue was decided by a Coordinate Bench on August 12, 2025, in the case of Gaze Fashion Trade Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.

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 valid? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the JAO and not the FAO, which is a primary ground for challenge. The assessee relied on the decisions 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 Contention: The revenue acknowledged that the notice was issued by the JAO. The counsel for the revenue mentioned that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was preferred in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, and notice had been issued by the Apex Court. The revenue sought liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in the cited cases.

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:38386-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16233/2025 Tarun Bansal S/o Shri Satya Pal Bansal, Aged About 56 Years, R/ o A-7, A-8, Padampur Road, Ambica City, Ganganagar, 335001, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) Jaipur, (Pcit Jaipur), 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Bhawani Singh Road, Ambedker Circle, Jaipur-302005. 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. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bikaner-334001. ----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 27/08/2025

1.

Learned counsel for the parties submits that the controversy involved in this case is squarely covered by the order dated 12.08.2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5745/2025 titled as “Gaze Fashion Trade Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax”. The order dated 12.08.2025 reads as under :- (Uploaded on 01/09/2025 at 10:58:38 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:27:35 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:38386-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-16233/2025] “1. At the outset, respondent is seeking ten days’ time to file reply, but we are not inclined to grant any further time for the reason being counsel for revenue was present before this Court on 11th March 2025 when interim order was granted to petitioner. Even on 28th July 2025 when interim order was continued, counsel for revenue had sought one week’s to file reply. That one week’s time got over on 4th August 2025. 2. 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).

3.

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

4.

Mr. Jhanwar, senior 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 & Another2 and Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income- Tax & Others3. 5. 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.

6.

Therefore, keeping open rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 19.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.

7.

Petition disposed. (Uploaded on 01/09/2025 at 10:58:38 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:27:35 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:38386-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-16233/2025]

8.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed.”

2.

The present civil writ petition is disposed of on the same terms. (SANDEEP TANEJA), J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 122-deep/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 01/09/2025 at 10:58:38 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:27:35 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 →