ARUNA CHOUDHARY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/8976/2023HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:41191-DB16 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM, RAVI CHIRANIA3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 2, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's decision was based on the understanding that such notices issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) were considered invalid, following its own previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments in favor of the revenue. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to this notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All pending applications were disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Aruna Choudhary, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated April 2, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention, though not initially raised, was that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The revenue acknowledged that the Court had previously held such notices to be invalid, citing precedents. However, the revenue also noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was pending before the Supreme Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, which dealt with a similar issue. The parties agreed to proceed with the petitioner's prayer, with the revenue seeking liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court's decision favored the revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is invalid, as opposed to being issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, through counsel, initially stated that the ground regarding the notice being issued by a JAO and not an FAO had not been taken but sought permission to amend the petition if the Court insisted. Subsequently, the petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. Revenue's Contention: The revenue acknowledged that the Court had taken a view that such notices are invalid, citing Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The revenue also informed the Court that an SLP was pending before the Apex Court in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case. The revenue requested liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Supreme Court's decision overturned the High Court's rulings.

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:41191-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8976/2023 Aruna Choudhary W/o Late Shri Kauram Godara, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of Opposite Masuriya Colony, House No. 233B, Opposite Masuriya Police Choki, Pal Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)- 342001. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)- 342010. 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Jodhpur-1 Aayakar Bhawan, Paota-C Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan). 3. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax, New Central Revenue Building, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Gattani, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa, Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Judgment 16/09/2025

1.

At the outset, Mr. Prateek Gattani states that the legal ground that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not valid because it has been issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), has not been taken. Counsel states in the Court that petition is yet to be admitted and if the Court insists, petitioner will take out an application for adding grounds.

2.

Mr. K.K. Bissa states that this Court has taken a view that such a notice will be invalid and he will not insist on formal amendment in the petition. (Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 11:47:49 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:38:45 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41191-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-8976/2023]

3.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 02.04.2023 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 & 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.

4.

At the same time, Mr. K.K. 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. Prateek Gattani states that in view of the above, for the present, petitioner will reserve his 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 02.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.

7.

Petition disposed. 1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) 2 2025 SCC OnLine 3386 3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225(Bombay) (Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 11:47:49 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:38:45 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41191-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-8976/2023]

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. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ 15-a.asopa/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 11:47:49 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:38:45 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 →