USHA MAHESHWARI HOLANI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THROUGH INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/18600/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:43099-DB25 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM, SANDEEP TANEJA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal, acknowledging the agreement between the parties on one of the grounds, quashed and set aside the notice dated June 19, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The court relied on its previous judgments 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 revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to overturn these precedents. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. The petition was disposed of, and any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Usha Maheshwari Holani, challenged a notice dated June 19, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent is the Income Tax Department through the Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Bhilwara. The primary contention was that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur considered this issue, acknowledging that a similar ground was covered by a previous judgment of the same court. The revenue sought liberty to revive the notice if higher courts overturned the relevant precedents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated June 19, 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 invalid? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 was bad and not valid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. This contention was supported by judgments of the High Court in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue agreed that one of the grounds raised was covered by a judgment of the court. However, it was stated that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed by the Revenue in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, 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 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:43099-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18600/2025 Usha Maheshwari Holani W/o Vijay Prakash Maheshwari, Aged About 53 Years, R/o 1-F-38, Old Housing Board Shastri Nagar Bhilwara 311001, Rajasthan India. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Department Through Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Bhilwara, Bhilwara, Rajasthan, Kawa Khera Chourha, Shashtri Nagar, Bhilwara, Bhilwara, Rajasthan, 311001. ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Mahendra Gargieya through VC with Mr. Jaideep Singh Saluja For Respondent : Mr. K.K. Bissa HON'BLE 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. Gargieya that one of the grounds raised certainly is covered by a judgment of this Court.

2.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 19th 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. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2)3,has held that such a notice will be bad and not valid. 1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) 2 2025 SCCOnLine Raj 3386 3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) (Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 04:51:39 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:30:15 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:43099-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-18600/2025]

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. Gargieya states that in view of the above, for the present, petitioner will reserve her 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 19th 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, if any re-assessment order is passed, the same will also stand quashed and set aside. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ 5-pooja/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 04:51:39 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:30:15 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 →