SAHIL SARASWAT vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/16652/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:41164-DB16 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM, RAVI CHIRANIA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated 24.04.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the assessment order dated 24.04.2025 passed under Section 148A(3) of the Act. The decision was based on the petitioner's primary ground that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The Tribunal acknowledged the correctness of the petitioner's submission, referencing the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Shree Cement Limited. While the Revenue sought liberty to revive the notice in case of future intervention by the Apex Court in the aforementioned cases, the Tribunal, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties, granted the liberty as prayed by the Revenue. The operative direction was to quash and set aside the impugned notice and order with liberty to the Revenue to revive them under specific circumstances.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sahil Saraswat, challenged a notice under Section 148 and an assessment order under Section 148A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which was stated to be a procedural irregularity. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The respondent is the Income-Tax Officer, Ward Nokha. The order under challenge is the notice dated 24.04.2025 under Section 148 and the assessment order dated 24.04.2025 under Section 148A(3). The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history involves the issuance of the notice and order by the JAO, which the petitioner contested.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is valid? (Question of law and fact, concerning the procedure for issuance of notices under Section 148). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the JAO and not the FAO, citing precedents like Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another, and Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others. Revenue's Contentions: The respondent submitted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been preferred by the Revenue in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, 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,Section 148A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2025:RJ-JD:41164-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16652/2025 Sahil Saraswat S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad Saraswat, Aged About 29 Years, Ward No. 7, Near Raghunath Mandir, P.o. Roda, District Bikaner, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Income-Tax Officer, Ward Nokha, Ward No. 28, Behind Pwd Office, Sujangarh Road, Nokha, District Bikaner. ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Lokesh Mathur, Advocate Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate Mr. Hemant Singh Solanki, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. K.K. Bissa, Advocate HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Order 16/09/2025

1.

One of the primary grounds raised is that notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO).

2.

Indisputably, the notice to petitioner has been issued by the JAO and not FAO.

3.

Shri Mathur counsel for petitioner is correct in submitting that this issue has been extensively dealt with in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income- Tax Officer & Another2 and Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others3. 1 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) 2 2025 SCCOnLine Raj 3386 3 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) (Uploaded on 17/09/2025 at 05:12:26 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:39:05 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41164-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-16652/2025]

4.

Shri Bissa submitted 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.

Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 24.04.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act and assessment order dated 24.04.2025 passed under Section 148A(3) of the Act with liberty as prayed.

6.

Petition disposed.

7.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ 9-pooja/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 17/09/2025 at 05:12:26 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:39:05 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 →