RAJEEV JANGIR S/O RATAN LAL JANGIR vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/7462/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02035610202309 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 18, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's decision was based on the understanding that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), aligning with previous judgments of the same Court in cases like Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held such notices to be invalid. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The Court also stated that any reassessment order passed pursuant to this notice would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of with all rights and contentions of the parties kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajeev Jangir, challenged a notice dated April 18, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's counsel initially stated that the ground of the notice being issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) had not been taken but indicated willingness to amend the petition. The respondent revenue's counsel acknowledged a group of approximately 150 similar matters and the High Court's prior view that such notices are invalid. The revenue's counsel also mentioned that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed and notice issued in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), and sought liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court interfered with the judgments in related cases.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice 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 petitioner's counsel initially indicated that this ground was not formally taken but was prepared to amend the petition. Subsequently, the petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. Revenue's contention: The respondent revenue acknowledged that the High Court had previously taken a view that such notices are invalid. They also informed the Court about an SLP filed in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and requested liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court overturned the relevant High Court judgments (Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd.).

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-JP:36377-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7462/2023 Rajeev Jangir S/o Ratan Lal Jangir, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of 402, A27B, Rajputana Tower, Shanti Path, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Through Income Tax Officer, Ito Ward 4(2), Jaipur Having An Office At Rom No. 208, 2Nd Floor, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302005 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Yaduvanshi Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak Advocate with Mr. Palash Gupta Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order 09/09/2025

1.

At the outset, Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Yaduvanshi 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 Juri ictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), has not been taken. Counsel states in the Court that petition is yet to be admitted and if the Court insists, petitioner will take out an application for adding grounds.

2.

Mr. Sandeep Pathak states that since there was a group of almost 150 matters on the same ground and this Court has taken a view that such a notice will be invalid, he will not insist on formal amendment in the petition.

[2025:RJ-JP:36377-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-7462/2023]

3.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 18th April 2023 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued by a Juri ictional 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.

4.

At the same time, Mr. Sandeep Pathak 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. Abhimanyu Singh Yaduvanshi 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 18th April 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 SCCOnLine Raj 3386 3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)

[2025:RJ-JP:36377-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-7462/2023]

8.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed.

9.

In case, if any re-assessment order is passed, the same will also stand quashed and set aside.

10.

Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Yaduvanshi’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/51

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →