SH RAGHUVEER PRASAD SHARMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/18350/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:43125-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 agreed with the petitioner's submission that such a notice, issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), is invalid, citing its own previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer for the present, keeping open all rights and contentions of both parties. Crucially, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The petition was disposed of, and any re-assessment order passed after the petition's filing was also to stand quashed and set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sh Raghuveer Prasad Sharma, challenged a notice dated June 26, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Bhilwara. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), rendering it invalid. The respondent, Income Tax Officer, conceded 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 a relevant High Court judgment, and notice had been issued by the Supreme Court.

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? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The notice issued under Section 148 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 one of the grounds raised was covered by a judgment of the Court. However, it was stated that an SLP had been filed against the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and notice had been issued. The Revenue requested liberty to revive the 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:43125-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18350/2025 Sh Raghuveer Prasad Sharma S/o Sh Bal Krishan, Aged About 63 Years, R/o 20/184 Inside Bhadana Bag, Bhopalganj Bhilwara, Bhilwara . ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, R/o 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 25/09/2025 at 04:41:03 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:30:12 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:43125-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-18350/2025] 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 13-divyaP/- 3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 04:41:03 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:30:12 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 →