PUJA MALHOTRA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/16609/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:38643-DB28 August 2025Author: PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, SANDEEP TANEJA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated 16.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on the established legal position, as extensively dealt with in the cited cases of Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Shree Cement Limited, which presumably held that such notices should be issued by Faceless Assessing Officers. The Tribunal granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to alter the legal position in the aforementioned cases. The operative direction is the quashing of the notice and disposal of the petition with liberty reserved.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Puja Malhotra, challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The judgment confirms that the notice was indeed issued by the charged JAO. The case involves the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (National E-Assessment Centre), Central Board of Direct Taxes, Income Tax Officer, and the Assessing Officer as respondents. The assessment year is not explicitly stated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is valid? (Question of law). Assessee's contention: The notice under Section 148 is invalid because it was issued by the JAO and not the FAO. The assessee relies on 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: The Revenue acknowledged that the court may grant the petitioner's prayer based on the current legal position. However, it requested liberty to revive the notice under Section 148 if the Supreme Court were to interfere with 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:38643-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16609/2025 Puja Malhotra W/o Shree Davesh Malhotra, Aged About 42 Years, R/o House Number 334, Gali Number 8, Indira Colony, Ganganagar, 335001, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, - 1, Room No. 105, Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur - 342010. 2. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, (National E- Assessment Centre), 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, Ward-1, Aaykar Bhawan, Court Road, Sriganganagar - 335001. 5. The Assessing Officer, Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur. ----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 28/08/2025

1.

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 charged JAO and not FAO. (Uploaded on 01/09/2025 at 06:12:06 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:27:52 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:38643-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-16609/2025]

3.

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. 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 rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 16.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.

6.

Petition is disposed of.

7.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 103-Sudheer/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 01/09/2025 at 06:12:06 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:27:52 AM)

More judgments on Section 148

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →