ANIL KUMAR HISSARIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/10983/2023HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:42606-DB23 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM, SANDEEP TANEJA3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 29, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision was based on the agreement between the parties that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a judgment of the Court. Specifically, the Court noted that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which, according to the Court's prior ruling in Shree Cement Limited (following Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd.), renders such a notice invalid. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties for future stages. No other grounds were decided on merits.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anil Kumar Hissaria, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 29, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The revenue acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the Court. The revenue also informed the Court that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed against a relevant High Court judgment, and notice had been issued. The petitioner stated that he would reserve his right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage.

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 valid? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notice under Section 148 is invalid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. This contention is based on the judgment of this Court in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's Contention: The revenue agreed that one ground was covered by a judgment of this Court. Regarding the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, the revenue stated that an SLP had been filed and notice issued. The revenue requested liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited.

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:42606-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10983/2023 Anil Kumar Hissaria S/o Shri Shiv Kumar Hissaria, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of A-46, Shri Ram Vatika, P.w.d. Colony, Jodhpur, Rajasthan - 342001. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Acit Circle - 1, Aayakar Bhawan, Rani Bazar, Bikaner, Rajasthan - 334001. 2. Central Board Of Direct Taxation, Through Its Chairman, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, Cbdt, New Delhi - 11004. 3. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110004. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Gattani. For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order 23/09/2025

1.

Mr. Bissa agrees with Mr. Gattani that one of the grounds raised certainly is covered by a judgment of this Court.

2.

At the outset, Mr. Prateek Gattani 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. Consequently, other grounds are not being pressed at this stage. (Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 12:39:39 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:29:53 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:42606-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-10983/2023]

3.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 29.03.2023 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 & 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. 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.

5.

Mr. Prateek Gattani 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 29.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.

7.

Petition disposed. 1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) 2 2025 SCC OnLine 3386 3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225(Bombay) (Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 12:39:39 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:29:53 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:42606-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-10983/2023]

8.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ 16-a.asopa/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 12:39:39 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:29:53 AM)

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →