GAJENDRA PRAKASH SOLANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/10774/2022HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:41557-DB17 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM, RAVI CHIRANIA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated June 29, 2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's argument that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), rendering it invalid, as per previous High Court decisions in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Revenue did not press for the notice to be sustained in light of these precedents but sought liberty to revive it if the Supreme Court's decision in the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case differed. The Court granted this liberty. The petition was disposed of, and any reassessment order passed pursuant to the impugned notice would also stand quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gajendra Prakash Solanki, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated June 29, 2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention, though initially not formally raised, was that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent, Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Makrana, acknowledged that the High Court had previously held such notices to be invalid, citing cases like Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Revenue indicated that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was pending before the Supreme Court in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case.

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 invalid? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, through his counsel, stated that the notice dated June 29, 2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. This position is supported by the High Court's rulings in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's Contention: The respondent acknowledged the High Court's consistent view on the invalidity of such notices. However, the Revenue pointed out that an SLP has been filed and admitted by the Supreme Court in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case. The Revenue requested liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court's decision overturns the High Court's judgments.

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:41557-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10774/2022 Gajendra Prakash Solanki S/o Shri Mithan Lal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o 5/ii, Shri Roopam, New Panchwati Colony, Ratanada, Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Makrana, District Nagaur. ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Lokesh Mathur For Respondent : Mr. K.K. Bissa HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Order 17/09/2025

1.

At the outset, Mr. Lokesh Mathur states that the legal ground that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not valid because it has been issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), has not been taken. Counsel states in the Court that petition is yet to be admitted and if the Court insists, petitioner will take out an application for adding grounds.

2.

Mr. Bissa states that this Court has taken a view that such a notice will be invalid and he will not insist on formal amendment in the petition.

3.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 29th June 2021 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 1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 10:30:19 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:29:01 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41557-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-10774/2022] Tax 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.

4.

At the same time, Mr. 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.

5.

Mr. Lokesh Mathur states that in view of the above, for the present, petitioner will reserve his right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage.

6.

Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 29th June 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.

7.

Petition disposed.

8.

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

9.

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 22-pooja/- 2 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 3386 3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 10:30:19 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:29:01 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 →