PITAMBAR SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED vs. OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/4615/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02020952202309 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated July 30, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which has been held to be bad in law by this Court in cases like Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Tribunal 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, the assessment order dated May 29, 2023, which was passed based on the invalid notice, was also quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pitambar Solvex Private Limited, challenged a notice dated July 30, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), rendering it invalid. The respondent, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, conceded that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by existing judgments. The respondent also noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed against a relevant High Court judgment, and notice had been issued. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds later. An assessment order dated May 29, 2023, was passed after the petition was filed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated July 30, 2022, 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 in law and invalid? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The notice under Section 148 is invalid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, relying on the High Court's judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue agreed that one ground was covered by a judgment. They stated that an SLP had been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued. They requested liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court interfered with the aforementioned judgments. The revenue did not contest the invalidity of the notice based on the cited precedents for the present.

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:36362-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4615/2023 Pitambar Solvex Private Limited, Having Its Address At S-103, Sumer Complex, Gautam Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur- 302001, Rajasthan Through Its Director Ashok Kumar Malhotra S/o Sundar Lal Malhotra Aged About 57 Years R/o B-39, Jai Jawan Colony, First Tonk Road, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302018. ----Petitioner Versus Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Acit/dcit Circle 6, 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 30th July 2022 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:36362-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-4615/2023] 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 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 30th July 2022 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.

We are informed that after the petition was filed, an assessment order dated 29th May 2023 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. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT/48 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 →