REYANSH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/9521/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:41592-DB17 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 April 12, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by its own previous judgments, specifically citing Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. These judgments held that a notice issued by a JAO instead of an FAO would be invalid. While the Revenue agreed with this position for the present, it highlighted that an SLP was pending before the Supreme Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case. Therefore, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Supreme Court's decision altered the existing legal position. The Court also stated that if any re-assessment order is passed, it will also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Reyansh Infrastructure Private Limited, challenged a notice dated April 12, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The challenge was directed against the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur (the respondent). The core of the petitioner's argument was that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent's counsel agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court. The respondent also noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed against the judgment in a similar case, Hexaware Technologies Ltd., and notice had been issued by the Supreme Court. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds later.

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 Contentions: The notice dated 12.04.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad and not valid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The assessee relies on the High Court's judgment in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, following Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). Revenue's Contentions: The respondent agrees that one of the grounds raised is covered by a judgment of the Court. The respondent states that in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Revenue has preferred a Special Leave Petition and notice has been issued. In view of the law as it stands today, the Court may grant the prayer of the petitioner, but in case the Apex Court interferes with the 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.

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:41592-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9521/2025 Reyansh Infrastructure Private Limited, Having Registered Address At 302, Vinayak Apartment Near Saint Mary School, Fatehpur, Udaipur - 313001 Through Authorized Representative Mr. Sumeet Agarwal S/o Shyam Sundar Agarwal, Aged About 49 Years, R/o 4, Anand Vihar Colony, M.m. Choubey Ward, Bargawan Katni, Madhya Pradesh-483501. ----Petitioner Versus The Assistant Commisssioner Of Income Tax, Acit, C-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 THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Order 17/09/2025

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 12.04.2024 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 11:55:31 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:29:14 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41592-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-9521/2025] 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 12.04.2024 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 1-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 11:55:31 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:29:14 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 →