SH. ARPIT MAHESHWARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/18343/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:43123-DB25 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM, SANDEEP TANEJA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated June 26, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's decision was based on the agreement between the parties that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court. Specifically, the Court referred to its own decision in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that a Section 148 notice issued by a JAO and not an FAO is bad and invalid. The Revenue, while agreeing to the quashing of the notice for the present, sought liberty to revive it if the Supreme Court were to alter the legal position established in the aforementioned High Court judgments. The Court granted this liberty to the Revenue. The operative direction was to quash and set aside the notice with liberty as prayed. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties. Any re-assessment order passed after the filing of the petition was also to stand quashed and set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sh. Arpit Maheshwari, challenged a notice dated June 26, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent is the Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Ward-1, Bhilwara. The core of the challenge was that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The petitioner argued that such a notice is invalid. The Revenue, represented by Mr. K.K. Bissa, agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the Court. The Revenue also indicated that while the Court might grant the petitioner's prayer for now, they sought liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the relevant High Court judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated June 26, 2025, 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? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner contended that the notice under Section 148 was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, rendering it invalid. This contention was based on the premise that such notices must be issued by the designated faceless authority. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, through its counsel, agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a judgment of the High Court. While agreeing that the Court could grant the petitioner's prayer for the present, the Revenue sought liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Supreme Court were to overturn the High Court's decisions in related cases. The Revenue did not dispute the factual assertion regarding the issuer of the notice.

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:43123-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18343/2025 Sh. Arpit Maheshwari S/o Sh. Narendra Maheshwari, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Shree Nath Marg, B-22, Sanjay Colony, Bhilwara Rajasthan, 311001. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Ward-1, Income Tax Department, Bhilwara, Kawa Khera Chouraha, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara, Rajasthan, 311001. ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Arora Mr. Jaideep Malik Mr. Ranjan Mehta For Respondent : Mr. K.K Bissa HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order 25/09/2025

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 26th 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 SCC OnLine Raj 3386 (Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 11:04:24 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:30:09 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:43123-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-18343/2025] Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2)33, 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 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 26th June 2025 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, any re-assessment order is passed after filing the present petition, the same will also stand quashed and set aside. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ 12-divyaP/- 3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 11:04:24 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:30:09 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 →