SHRI MAHESH KUMAR DUBEY LEGAL HEIR OF LATE RAMA DUBEY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/16972/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02091119202208 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal (High Court) quashed and set aside the notice dated June 30, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found that the ground raised by the petitioner, concerning the issuance of the notice by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), was covered by its own judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court acknowledged the Revenue's submission that an SLP was pending against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment and granted the Revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the precedents. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to this notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All other rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri Mahesh Kumar Dubey, Legal Heir of Late Rama Dubey, challenged a notice dated June 30, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3), Jaipur. The respondent is the Income Tax Department. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the issuance of the Section 148 notice, which is the subject of the challenge. The High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, heard the writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated June 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 invalid. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notice is bad and not valid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. The assessee relied 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, Circle 15(1)(2). Revenue's Contention: The Revenue agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner is covered by the High Court's judgment. However, the Revenue pointed out that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice has been issued. The Revenue 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 current High Court precedent.

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:36095-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16972/2022 Shri Mahesh Kumar Dubey Legal Heir Of Late Rama Dubey, Aged About 69 Years, Residing At Bb-1A, Anita Colony, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur - 302015 ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3), New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302005 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Sharma Advocate with Mr. Saksham Pandey Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak Advocate with Ms. Jaya P. Pathak Advocate & Mr. Palash Gupta Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Judgment 08/09/2025

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 June 2022 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued by a Juri ictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Offider (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. 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:36095-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-16972/2022]

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 30th June 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.

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-SEEMA/47

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →