SUNHERI CARS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/10139/2023HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:42587-DB23 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM, SANDEEP TANEJA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice dated April 11, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad and not valid because it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). This finding is based on the High Court's previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others and Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another. The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice. However, in view of the pending SLP in the Supreme Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, the Tribunal granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision alters the existing legal position. The petition was disposed of, and any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sunheri Cars Private Limited, challenged a notice dated April 11, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Bikaner. The petitioner argued that the notice was invalid because it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent revenue conceded that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court. The revenue also mentioned that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed against the judgment in a related case, and notice had been issued by the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated April 11, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is invalid, as opposed to being issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The notice under Section 148 is bad and not valid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. The assessee relies on the High Court's judgments in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others and Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another. Revenue's Contention: The revenue agrees that the ground is covered by a judgment of the High Court. However, it states that an SLP has been filed against the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), and notice has been issued. The revenue seeks liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court interferes with 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:42587-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10139/2023 Sunheri Cars Private Limited, Having Its Office At Chak 496, Nagrasar Ganganagar Jaipur By Pass Bikaner 334303 Through Its Authorized Signatory Subhash Gupta ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Aaykar Bhawan, Rani Bazar, Bikaner, Rajasthan 334001 ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Arora For Respondent : Mr. K.K. Bissa with Mr. G.S. Chouhan HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order 23/09/2025

1.

Mr. Bissa, who appears on advance copy, agrees with Mr. Arora that one of the grounds raised certainly is covered by a judgment of this Court.

2.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 11th April 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 & Others1 following Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The 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 SCCOnLine Raj 3386 (Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 05:25:55 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:29:48 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:42587-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-10139/2023] 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. 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. Arora states that in view of the above, for the present, petitioner will reserve its 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 11th April 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. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ 13-pooja/- 3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 05:25:55 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:29:48 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 →