AACHARAN ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/15408/2023HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:41280-DB16 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM, RAVI CHIRANIA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was bad and not valid, as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). This finding was based on the precedent set by this Court in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another. The Court acknowledged the Revenue's submission that an SLP was pending in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the notice dated 06.04.2023. However, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The petition was disposed of, and any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside. All other rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Aacharan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., challenged a notice dated April 6, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The challenge was before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. The core of the dispute was whether the notice was validly issued. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash this notice. The respondent, The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Udaipur, was represented. The High Court considered the arguments presented by both sides regarding the validity of the notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated 06.04.2023 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 turning on Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 was invalid because it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). They relied on this Court's judgments in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others and Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another, which held such notices to be bad in law. Revenue's Contentions: The respondent agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by this Court's judgment. They acknowledged that in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), where a similar issue arose, the Revenue had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) and notice had been issued. The Revenue requested liberty 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.

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:41280-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15408/2023 Aacharan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Having Registered Address At N.h. 8, Lal Madri, Nathdwara, Rajsamand, Rajasthan - 313301 Through Authorized Representative Mr. Chatur Bhuj S/o Devi Lal Chouhan Aged About 52 Years, R/o 178, Gali No. 7 Ward No. 35, Beawar, Ajmer, Rajasthan - 305901 Email Id Cb.chouhan@mirajgroup.in ----Petitioner Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Aayakar Bhawan, Rajast, Subcity Centre, Savina, Udaipur, Rajasthan - 313001 Email Id Udiapur.dcit2@incometax.gov.in ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Pranav Bhardwaj for Mr. Sanjay Nahar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa, Advocate. HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Order 16/09/2025

1.

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

2.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 06.04.2023 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 & Others1 following Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax 1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) (Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 11:50:57 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:28:31 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41280-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-15408/2023] Officer & Another2 and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. 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. Pranay Bhardwaj 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 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.

6.

Petition disposed.

7.

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

8.

In case, if any re-assessment order is passed, the same will also stand quashed and set aside. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ 23-a.asopa/- 2 2025 SCC OnLine 3386 3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225(Bombay) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 11:50:57 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:28:31 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 →