SAKSHAM CHUGH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
CW/17274/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:40765-DB11 September 2025Author: PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, SANDEEP TANEJA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated 26.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on the undisputed fact that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The Tribunal acknowledged the petitioner's counsel's submission that this issue had been extensively dealt with in the cited cases. The Tribunal granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The operative direction was to quash the notice with liberty as prayed, and the petition was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Saksham Chugh, 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), which the petitioner argued was contrary to established legal principles. The respondents, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and others, acknowledged that the notice was indeed issued by the charged JAO. The case was heard by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. The procedural history involves the issuance of the Section 148 notice and the subsequent writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging its validity.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is valid, or if it must be issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? (Question of law). The petitioner argued that the notice was invalid because it was issued by the JAO and not the FAO, relying on precedents like 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. The revenue conceded that the notice was issued by the JAO. The revenue's contention was that while the court might grant the petitioner's prayer based on current law, the revenue should be granted liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court's decision in the cited cases were to be overturned.

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:40765-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17274/2025 Saksham Chugh S/o Shri Pramod Chugh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Rf 16 Ridhi Sidhi Enclave 1St, 2Ml, Sriganganagar, 335002, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) Jaipur, (Pcit Jaipur), 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Bhawani Singh Road, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur 302005 2. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (National Faceless Assessment Centre), 4Th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Circle, New Delhi - 110001 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 11/09/2025

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.

3.

Mr. Sharad Kothari, learned counsel for petitioner is correct in submitting that this issue has been extensively dealt with in (Uploaded on 15/09/2025 at 11:55:41 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:28:19 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40765-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-17274/2025] 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.

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 26.03.2025 (Annexure-2) 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 7-Ravi Khandelwal Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 15/09/2025 at 11:55:41 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:28:19 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 →