LEELA INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/13757/2022HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:41235-DB16 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM, RAVI CHIRANIA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated July 22, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court reasoned that this notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), rendering it invalid. This finding was based on the Court's previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. Consequently, since the Section 148 notice was held to be invalid, the consequential assessment order dated May 30, 2023, was also quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of with liberty as prayed, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Leela Infratech Private Limited, challenged a notice dated July 22, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a consequential assessment order dated May 30, 2023. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The Revenue acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court. The Revenue also stated that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed against the judgment in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, and notice had been issued. The Revenue requested liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court interfered with the existing judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated 22.07.2022 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 and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee contended that the notice under Section 148 was bad and invalid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. This contention was supported by the High Court's judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue agreed that one of the grounds raised was covered by a judgment of the Court. While acknowledging the current legal position, the Revenue stated that an SLP had been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued. The Revenue requested liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Apex 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:41235-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13757/2022 Leela Infratech Private Limited, Through Its Director Shri Dinesh Kumar Laddha (Age 46 Years), Having Registered Office At Shop No. 29-30, 1St Floor, Apsara Complex, Azad Chowk, Bhilwara (Rajasthan) 311001. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ito Ward-1, Kawa Khera Chourha, Shashtri Nagar, Bhilwara (Rajasthan) 311001. 2. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 302005. 3. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Through Chairperson, Type-7, Bungalow No. 75, New Moti Bagh, New Delhi 110021. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Prateek Gattani, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. K.K. Bissa, Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Order 16/09/2025

1.

Mr. K.K. Bissa agrees with Mr. Gattani that one of the grounds raised is certainly covered by a judgment of this Court.

2.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 22.07.2022 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) and this Court in the case of Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Officer & Another2 and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. 1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) 2 2025 SCC OnLine 3386 (Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 11:49:02 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:28:27 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41235-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-13757/2022] Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2)3, has held that such a notice will be bad and not valid.

3.

At the same time, Mr. K.K. Bissa states 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.

4.

Mr. Prateek Gattani states that in view of the above, for the present, petitioner will reserve his right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage.

5.

Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 22.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.

6.

Since we have held that notice issued under Section 148 of the Act itself is not valid, consequential assessment order dated 30.05.2023 cannot be sustained and the same is also quashed and set aside.

7.

Petition disposed.

8.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ 16-a.asopa/- 3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225(Bombay) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 11:49:02 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:28:27 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 →