MIRAJ ENTERTAINMENT LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/16207/2023HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:41282-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 07.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), citing its own previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Supreme Court, in its pending SLP concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, interferes with the High Court's judgment. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. The petition was disposed of, and any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Miraj Entertainment Ltd., challenged a notice dated 07.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent is The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), rendering it invalid. The revenue acknowledged that this ground is covered by a previous judgment of the High Court. However, the revenue mentioned that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed before the Supreme Court concerning a similar issue in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd., and notice had been issued. The revenue requested liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court's decision differed from the High Court's.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated 07.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is bad in law and invalid? Assessee's Contention: The notice is invalid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, relying on the High Court's judgment in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's Contention: The revenue agreed that the issue is covered by the High Court's judgment. However, they stated that an SLP has been filed in the Supreme Court regarding the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, and notice has been issued. The revenue requested liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Supreme Court's decision overturns the High Court's ruling.

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:41282-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16207/2023 Miraj Entertainment Ltd., Having Registered Address At 3Rd Floor, Miraj Campus, Uper Ki Oden, Nathdwara, Rajasthan - 313301 Through Authorized Representative Mr. Amit S/o Pravin Sharma, Aged About 41 Years R/o B-1301, Rustomjee Blanza Chstl, Chincholi Bunder, Behind Inorbit Mall, Off Link Road Malad West, Mumbai - 400064 Email Id - Amit.sharma@mirajcinemas.com Mobile No. 8875028268 ----Petitioner Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, Aayakar Bhawan, Rajast, Subcity Centre, Savina, Udaipur, Rajasthan - 313001 Email Id - Udaipur.dcit2@incometax.gov.in ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : 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 07.04.2023 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 & DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) (Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 11:52:38 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:28:37 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41282-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-16207/2023] 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 07.04.2023 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 25-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 11:52:38 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:28:37 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 →