GOVIND PRAKASH AGARWAL S/O SHRI RAM GOPAL SARRAF vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/1877/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02008477202409 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 30, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on the established precedent of this Court in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that such notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are invalid. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. Consequently, since the Section 148 notice was held to be invalid, the assessment order dated March 9, 2024, which was consequential to the notice, was also quashed and set aside. The Court kept open all rights and contentions of the parties.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Govind Prakash Agarwal, challenged a notice dated March 30, 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, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Union of India, acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the Court. The Revenue also indicated that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed against the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and notice had been issued. The Court was informed that an assessment order dated March 9, 2024, had been passed after the petition was filed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated March 30, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is bad and invalid in law? (Question of law) Contentions: Assessee: The notice under Section 148 is invalid as it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, relying on the judgments in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). Revenue: Agreed that one of the grounds is covered by a judgment of the Court. However, stated that an SLP has been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice has been issued. Requested liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court interferes with the aforementioned judgments. The Revenue did not contest the invalidity of the notice based on the existing High Court judgments.

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:36429-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1877/2024 Govind Prakash Agarwal S/o Shri Ram Gopal Sarraf, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Brij Villa, D-70, Residency Road, C-Scheme Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302005 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2 Room No. 410 4Th Floor Jeevan Nidhi-2 Lic Building Ambedkar Circle Jaipur Rajasthan - 302005 2. 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. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi-110001. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rajat Sharma Advocate with Mr. Saksham Pandey Advocate. For Respondents Nos.1 & 2 For Respondent No. 3 : : Mr. Siddharth Bapna Advocate with Mr. Sarvesh Jain Advocate & Mr. Meyhul Mittal Advocate Mr. Devesh Yadav Advocate with Mr. Yatharth Asopa Advocate & Mr. Chinmay Surolia Advocate for Mr. R.D. Rastogi, ASG 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 30th March 2023 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued

[2025:RJ-JP:36429-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-1877/2024] 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.

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 30th 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:36429-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-1877/2024]

8.

We are informed that after the petition was filed, an assessment order dated 09th March 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/68

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →