GANPAT TRADERS vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/17261/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:41196-DB16 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM, RAVI CHIRANIA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated 26.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the assessment order dated 26.06.2025 passed under Section 148A(3) of the Act. The Court found merit in the petitioner's contention that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), referencing the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Shree Cement Limited. While acknowledging the pending SLP in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and the possibility of the Apex Court's intervention, the Court proceeded to grant the petitioner's prayer. However, to protect the revenue's interest, liberty was granted to the revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court's decision in the aforementioned cases were to impact the current ruling. The petition was disposed of with these directions, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ganpat Traders, a partnership firm, challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and a subsequent assessment order. The primary contention was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which was allegedly contrary to the established procedure. The respondents are the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (National E-Assessment Centre), Central Board of Direct Taxes, and the Income Tax Officer. The assessment year is not explicitly stated, but the notice and order bear the date 26.06.2025. The procedural history involves the issuance of the impugned notice and order, leading to the present writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? (Question of law and fact, concerning the procedure for issuance of Section 148 notices). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the JAO and not the FAO, which is a primary ground for challenge. They relied 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 & Another, and Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others. Revenue's Contention: The revenue acknowledged that the notice was issued by the JAO. They submitted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been filed in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and notice has been issued. The revenue requested liberty to revive the notice under Section 148 if the Apex Court interferes with the judgments in the cited cases.

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:41196-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17261/2025 Ganpat Traders, A Partnership Firm, Having Its Principal Place Of Business, At 105, Kardhar Complex, Hiran Magri, Sector 4, Udaipur 308905, Rajasthan Through Its Partner Manoz Kumar S/ o Shree Ram Lal Agarwal, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Ward No. 16, Fatehnagar, Changeri, Udaipur, 313205, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-2, Aayakar Bhawan, Sub City Centre, Savina, Udaipur 2. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (National E Assessment Centre), 2Nd Floor, E Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Delhi 110003 3. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Cbdt Headquarters North Block (Department Of Revenue), New Delhi - 110001 4. Income Tax Officer, Ito Ward-2(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Sub City Centre, Savina, Udaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sharad Kothari, Advocate For Respondents : 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 Kothari counsel for petitioner is correct in submitting that this issue has been extensively dealt with in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income- (Uploaded on 17/09/2025 at 05:15:35 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:28:59 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41196-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-17261/2025] Tax Officer & Another2 and Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others3. 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 26.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act and assessment order dated 26.06.2025 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 20-pooja/- 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) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 17/09/2025 at 05:15:35 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:28:59 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 →