INDER KUMAR HISSARIA vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/13372/2023HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:42606-DB23 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM, SANDEEP TANEJA3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated 29.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the legal ground regarding the notice being issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) was covered by its own previous judgments, specifically Shree Cement Limited, which relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer for the present. However, in light of the Revenue's submission that an SLP was filed in the Apex Court concerning Hexaware Technologies Ltd., the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The Court also noted that the petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. Consequently, the petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Inder Kumar Hissaria, proprietor of M/s Shiv Kumar Hissaria And Sons, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 29.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's primary contention was that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondents included the Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1, Hanumangarh, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, and the Union of India. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the petitioner raising a specific legal ground concerning the validity of the notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is valid? (Question of law). Assessee's contention: The notice dated 29.03.2023 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. This ground is covered by this Court's judgment 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). Revenue's contention: While agreeing that the ground is covered by the cited judgments, the Revenue noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been filed in the Apex Court concerning Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Revenue requested liberty to revive the notice under Section 148 if the Apex Court interferes with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Revenue did not press other grounds at this stage.

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:42606-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13372/2023 Inder Kumar Hissaria S/o Shri Shiv Kumar Hissaria, Aged About 64 Years, Proprietor Of M/s Shiv Kumar Hissaria And Sons, Having Shop At Shop No. 10A, Nai Dhan Mandi, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan 335512 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1, Income-Tax Department, Near Collectorate Chowk, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan 335512 2. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Through Its Chairman, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, Cbdt, New Delhi 11004 3. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance,n Orth Block, New Delhi 110004 ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Prateek Gattani. For Respondents : Mr. K.K. Bissa. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order 23/09/2025

1.

Mr. Bissa agrees with Mr. Gattani that one of the grounds raised certainly is covered by a judgment of this Court.

2.

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. Consequently, other grounds are not being pressed at this stage. (Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 12:40:36 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:39:14 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:42606-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-13372/2023]

3.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 29.03.2023 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 29.03.2023 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 25/09/2025 at 12:40:36 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:39:14 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:42606-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-13372/2023]

8.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ 17-a.asopa/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 12:40:36 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:39:14 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 →