GIRDHARI LAL AGARWAL S/O LATE MR. BRIJ MOHAN AGARWAL vs. UNION OF INDIA

PDF · subscribers
CW/17183/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02094280202409 September 2025Bench: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

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 found that the notice was indeed issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), and that this ground was covered by 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 the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court's decision in the pending SLP concerning Hexaware Technologies Ltd. differed from the High Court's rulings. Consequently, the assessment order dated February 23, 2024, which was passed pursuant to the invalid notice, was also quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Girdhari Lal Agarwal, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 26, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended 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 revenue authorities, acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court. The revenue also noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was pending before the Supreme Court concerning a similar issue in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. An assessment order dated February 23, 2024, had also been passed after the writ petition was filed.

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 invalid? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that such a notice is bad and not valid, relying on the High Court's judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's Contention: The revenue agreed that one of the grounds was covered by a High Court judgment. They stated that an SLP was pending in the Supreme Court regarding Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and requested liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Apex Court's decision differed from the High Court's rulings in the cited cases. The revenue did not contest the invalidity of the notice based on the existing High Court precedents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JP:36407-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17183/2024 Girdhari Lal Agarwal S/o Late Mr. Brij Mohan Agarwal, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Khawas Ji Ki Bagichi, Outside Zorawarsingh Gate, Amer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302002 ----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:36407-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-17183/2024] 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:36407-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-17183/2024] 8. We are informed that after the petition was filed, an assessment order dated 23rd 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/80

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →