RKD INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/6855/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02036106202409 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in agreement with the submissions made by both parties, quashed and set aside the notice dated March 31, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged that the ground raised by the petitioner regarding the notice being issued by a JAO instead of an FAO is covered by previous judgments of the Court, specifically Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The petition was disposed of with liberty as prayed, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties. The Court also noted that any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rkd Infraprojects Private Limited, challenged a notice dated March 31, 2024, 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 4(2), Jaipur. The High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, was hearing the writ petition. The matter was listed for hearing before a Division Bench.

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 and bad in law? (Question of law turning on Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The notice dated March 31, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad in law as it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. This contention is supported by the judgment of this Court in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, following 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: The Revenue agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner is covered by a judgment of this Court. However, the Revenue stated that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been preferred against the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and notice has been issued. The Revenue requested liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 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:36388-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6855/2024 Rkd Infraprojects Private Limited, Having Its Office At 160, Gom Defence Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur- 302021 Through Its Authorized Signatory Priya Dusad D/o Kailash Chand Pabuwal Aged About 47. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2), Jaipur, New Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur Rajasthan- 302005 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Vijay 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. Aditya Vijay 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 2024 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:36388-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-6855/2024] 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. Aditya Vijay states that in view of the above, for the present, petitioner will reserve its 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 2024 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/54 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 →