VIKASH SHARMA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/16733/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:41165-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 29.05.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the assessment order dated 29.05.2025 passed under Section 148A(3) of the Act. This decision was based on the admitted fact that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), aligning with the petitioner's primary ground. The Tribunal acknowledged the submissions made by the revenue regarding the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case and granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in the cited cases (Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Shree Cement Limited). The petition was disposed of with all rights and contentions of the parties kept open. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vikash Sharma, 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 the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The judgment notes that this issue has been extensively dealt with in previous cases. The revenue acknowledged that the notice was issued by the JAO, not the FAO. The revenue also mentioned that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, and notice had been issued. The revenue requested liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court interfered with the judgments in the cited cases.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the JAO and not the FAO, which is a primary ground for challenge. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2)1, Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another2, and Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others3. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue acknowledged that the notice was issued by the JAO. The revenue submitted that an SLP was filed in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, and notice had been issued. The revenue requested liberty to revive the notice under Section 148 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:41165-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16733/2025 Vikash Sharma S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad Sharma, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Vpo Roda, Ward No.6, 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 05:12:59 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:39:08 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41165-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-16733/2025]

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 29.05.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act and assessment order dated 29.05.2025 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 10-pooja/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 17/09/2025 at 05:12:59 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:39:08 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 →