MANOJ KUMAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/16757/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:41167-DB16 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM, RAVI CHIRANIA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated 25.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the assessment order dated 25.06.2025 passed under Section 148A(3) of the Act. This decision was based on the established principle that such notices must be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer, as supported by the precedents cited by the petitioner. The Tribunal acknowledged the revenue's submission regarding the pending Special Leave Petition in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case and granted liberty to the revenue 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. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manoj Kumar, challenged a notice under Section 148 and an assessment order under Section 148A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, acknowledged that the notice was indeed issued by the JAO. The petitioner relied on previous judgments from the Bombay High Court and the Rajasthan High Court. The revenue sought liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is valid? (Question of law). The petitioner argued that the notice was invalid as it was not issued by the FAO, relying on the decisions in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2)1, Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another2, and Shree Cement Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others3. The revenue did not dispute that the notice was issued by the JAO. However, the revenue pointed out that a Special Leave Petition was preferred in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case and notice had been issued. The revenue requested liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the cited judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2025:RJ-JD:41167-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16757/2025 Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Mula Ram, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Runiya Bada Bass, District Bikaner, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Dcit, Acit Centre Circle, Room No. 72, Ground Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Rani Bazar, Bikaner. ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Lokesh Mathur, Advocate Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate Mr. Hemant Singh Solanki, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. K.K. Bissa, Advocate HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Order 16/09/2025

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 JAO and not FAO.

3.

Shri Mathur counsel for petitioner is correct in submitting that this issue has been extensively dealt with in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income- Tax Officer & Another2 and Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others3. 1 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) 2 2025 SCCOnLine Raj 3386 3 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) (Uploaded on 17/09/2025 at 05:13:34 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:28:52 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41167-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-16757/2025]

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 all rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 25.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act and assessment order dated 25.06.2025 passed under Section 148A(3) of the Act with liberty as prayed.

6.

Petition disposed.

7.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ 11-pooja/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 17/09/2025 at 05:13:34 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:28:52 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 →