SANDEEP KUMAR SINGLA vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/19523/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:44085-DB08 October 2025Author: PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, ANUROOP SINGHI2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench's judgment in Majdoor Kisan Akali Dal Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax-Exemptions & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18885/2025), quashed and set aside the notice dated June 13, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which was held to be bad and invalid by this Court in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, following Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). The respondent revenue authority conceded this point. However, the Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments in the pending SLP. The petition was disposed of on these terms, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties. Any re-assessment order passed subsequently would also stand quashed and set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sandeep Kumar Singla, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated June 13, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 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 revenue authority, represented by Mr. K.K. Bissa, acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the co-ordinate bench. The respondent also noted that the revenue had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against a similar judgment in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd., and if the Apex Court were to interfere with the precedents, the revenue should have liberty to revive the notice. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated June 13, 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 and liable to be quashed? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner contended that the notice under Section 148 was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, which is contrary to established legal principles. They relied on the judgment of this Court 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, Circle 15(1)(2), holding such notices to be invalid. Revenue's Contentions: The respondent revenue authority, through its counsel Mr. K.K. Bissa, conceded that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a judgment of this Court. They further stated that while the Court could grant the petitioner's prayer based on the current legal position, the revenue had filed an SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case. The revenue requested liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Apex Court were to rule in their favor in the pending SLP.

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:44085-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19523/2025 Sandeep Kumar Singla S/o Krishan Chand, Aged About 43 Years, 22, Sri Ram Colony, Near Shiv Chowk, Ganganagar, Sriganganagar, 335001, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Income Tax Office, Rani Bazar, Bikaner, 334001, Rajasthan 2. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (National Faceless Assessment Centre), 4Th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001 3. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Cbdt Headquarters North Block (Department Of Revenue), New Delhi - 110001 4. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Court Road, Sriganganagar, 335001, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sharad Kothari Mr. Prajul Mehta Mr. Kalpit Shishodia Mr. Dinesh K. Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI

Order 08/10/2025

1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sharad Kothari submits that the controversy involved in this matter is squarely covered by the judgment dated 24.09.2025 passed by the co-ordinate Bench Commissioner of Income Tax-Exemptions & Ors.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18885/2025 which is reproduced hereinbelow :

"

1.

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.

2.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 13th June 2025 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued by (Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 06:21:15 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:30:29 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44085-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-19523/2025] 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 of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2)3,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. Kothari states that in view of the above, for the present, petitioner will reserve its 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 13th 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."

2.

Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to refute the above submission.

3.

In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of on the same terms. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 60-Arjun/- 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) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 06:21:15 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:30:29 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 →