OM PRAKASH GOYAL S/O SRI RAM GOPAL SARRAF vs. UNION OF INDIA

PDF · subscribers
CW/17176/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02094330202409 September 2025Bench: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 26, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), relying on its previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. Furthermore, since the Section 148 notice was held to be invalid, the consequential assessment order dated February 27, 2024, was also quashed and set aside. The Court accepted the petitioner's statement that an application to withdraw the appeal would be filed within two weeks. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Om Prakash Goyal, challenged a notice dated March 26, 2023, 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 respondents, Union of India and tax authorities, acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court. The respondents also noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was pending before the Apex Court concerning a similar issue in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The High Court was informed that an assessment order dated February 27, 2024, had been passed subsequent to the filing of the writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated March 26, 2023, 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 and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The notice is bad and not valid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. Relied on 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: Acknowledged that one ground is covered by this Court's judgment. Stated that an SLP has been filed in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and notice has been issued. Requested liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court interferes 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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JP:36413-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17176/2024 Om Prakash Goyal S/o Sri Ram Gopal Sarraf, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Brij Villa, D- 70, Residency Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302005 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, North Block, New Delhi- 110001. 2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, Circle -2, Room No. 410, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi- 2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302005. 3. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Acit Central Circle - 2, Room No. 410, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi- 2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302005. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rajat Sharma Advocate with Mr. Saksham Pandey Advocate. For Respondents No.1 For Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : : Mr. Devesh Yadav Advocate with Mr. Yatharth Asopa Advocate & Mr. Chinmay Surolia Advocate for Mr. R.D. Rastogi, ASG Mr. Siddharth Bapna Advocate with Mr. Sarvesh Jain Advocate & Mr. Meyhul Mittal Advocate HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 09/09/2025 1. Mr. Siddharth Bapna, who appears on advance copy, agrees with Mr. Rajat Sharma that one of the grounds raised certainly is covered by a judgment of this Court. 2. Ground referred to is that the notice dated 26th March 2023 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued

[2025:RJ-JP:36413-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-17176/2024] 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 & Others1 following Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The 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. 3. At the same time, Mr. Siddharth Bapna 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. Rajat Sharma states that in view of the above, for the present, petitioner will reserve his 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 26th March 2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed. 6. Petition disposed. 7. Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. 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)

[2025:RJ-JP:36413-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-17176/2024] 8. We are informed that after the petition was filed, an assessment order dated 27th February 2024 has already been passed. Since we have held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act itself is not valid, the consequential assessment order cannot be sustained. The same is also quashed and set aside. 9. Mr. Rajat Sharma’s statement that application to withdraw the appeal will be filed within two weeks, is accepted. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT/78

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →