SHYAM AWATAR METHI S/O BHAGWAN SAHAI METHI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/9743/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02045805202309 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, acknowledging the submissions of both parties, decided to quash and set aside the notice dated March 31, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Court agreed that the notice was bad in law as it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, citing its own precedent in Shree Cement Limited, which relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the liberty sought by the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The petition was disposed of with all rights and contentions of the parties kept open. Any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shyam Awatar Methi, challenged a notice dated March 31, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The challenge was based on the ground that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent is the Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur. The High Court was considering the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

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 notice is bad and invalid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, relying on the High 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. Revenue's contention: The Revenue acknowledged that the ground raised is covered by the High Court's judgment. However, it was stated that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been preferred in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and notice has been issued. The Revenue 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

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2025:RJ-JP:36381-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9743/2023 Shyam Awatar Methi S/o Bhagwan Sahai Methi, Aged About 54 Years, R/o B-107, Jai Jawan Cololny-Ist, Aadinath Nagar, J.l.n. Marg, Durgapura Jaipur, 302018 ----Petitioner Versus The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Ito Wd 5(2), Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, - 302005, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Sharma Advocate with Mr. Saksham Pandey 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.

Mr. Sandeep Pathak, 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 31th March 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. 1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) 2 2025 SCCOnLine Raj 3386

[2025:RJ-JP:36381-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-9743/2023] 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. 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.

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 31th 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.

8.

In case, if any re-assessment order is passed, the same will also stand quashed and set aside. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT/52 3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →