VELOCITY STOCK MART PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/18972/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:42752-DB24 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM, SANDEEP TANEJA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated June 10, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on the established precedent of the High Court in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that such notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are invalid. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer for the present. However, acknowledging the pendency of an SLP before the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The petitioner reserved its right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. The petition was disposed of, and any re-assessment order passed was also to stand quashed and set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Velocity Stock Mart Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated June 10, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), rendering it invalid. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, and the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur considered the matter. The revenue acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the Court.

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 bad in law and invalid? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The notice dated June 10, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Act is invalid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, relying on the High Court's judgment in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. Revenue's Contention: The revenue agreed that the ground was covered by the Court's judgment. However, they noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been preferred against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued by the Apex Court. The revenue requested liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned 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:42752-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18972/2025 Velocity Stock Mart Private Limited, Through Its Director, Sh. Sunil Kumar Maliwal, Aged 57 Years, S/o Late Sh. Rameshwar Lal Maliwal, 65 C, Khubha Nagar Chittorgarh - 312001, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Income Tax Department, Fort Road, Chittorgarh - 312001, Rajasthan. 2. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 2, Aayakar Bhawan, Udaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Anjay Kothari with Mr. Amit Sharma For Respondents : Mr. K.K. Bissa with Mr. G.S. Chouhan HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order 24/09/2025

1.

All office objections waived.

2.

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

3.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 10th June 2025 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 25/09/2025 at 12:10:04 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:30:00 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:42752-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-18972/2025] 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. Kothari states that in view of the above, for the present, petitioner will reserve its 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 10th June 2025 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. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ 13-pooja/- 3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 12:10:04 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:30:00 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 →