AACHARAN ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/17064/2023HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:41283-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 ground raised was covered by its own judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that such a notice issued by a JAO instead of an FAO is invalid. However, acknowledging the Revenue's submission that an SLP was pending before the Supreme Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision overturns the High Court's rulings. The Court explicitly stated that all rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. Any reassessment order passed subsequently would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Aacharan Enterprises Private Limited, 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 core of the challenge was that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The High Court was considering the writ petition, and the parties agreed that one of the grounds raised was covered by a previous judgment of the Court. The revenue indicated that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed against a relevant judgment, and notice had been issued by the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice 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? (Question of law turning on the procedural requirements for issuance of Section 148 notices). Assessee's Contention: The notice dated 07.04.2023 under Section 148 is invalid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, relying on the High Court's judgment in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. Revenue's Contention: While agreeing that the notice is covered by the aforementioned judgments, the Revenue stated that an SLP has been filed against the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and notice has been issued by the Apex Court. The Revenue sought liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court's decision overturns the High Court's rulings.

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:41283-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17064/2023 Aacharan Enterprises Private Limited, Having Registered Address At N.h. 8, Lal Madri, Nathdwara, Rajsamand, Rajasthan - 313301 Through Authorized Representative Mr. Chatur Bhuj Chouhan S/o Devi Lal Choudan, Aged About 52 Years R/o Miraj Campus Uper Ki Oden, Nathwara, Rajsamand, Rajasthan - 313301 ----Petitioner Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle - 2, Aayakar Bhawan, Rajast, Subcity Centre, Savina, Udaipur, Rajasthan - 313001 ----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 & 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 11:53:41 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:28:40 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41283-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-17064/2023] 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 26-a.asopa/- 3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225(Bombay) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 11:53:41 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:28:40 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 →