THAR SHARE BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6

PDF · subscribers
CW/16889/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02091038202208 September 2025Author: ANOOP KUMAR DHAND2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated July 29, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's decision was based on the agreement between the parties that the ground raised by the petitioner, concerning the issuance of the notice by a JAO instead of an FAO, was covered by previous judgments of the High Court. Specifically, the Court referred to its own decisions in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held such notices to be invalid. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with these precedents. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Thar Share Brokers Private Limited, challenged a notice dated July 29, 2022, 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 respondents are the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, was hearing the writ petition. The procedural history involves the petitioner filing the writ petition to quash the notice, and the revenue agreeing that one of the grounds raised is covered by existing judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated July 29, 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 valid? (Question of law). Assessee's Contention: The notice is bad and not valid as it was not issued by the designated Faceless Assessing Officer. The assessee relies on the High Court's judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's Contention: The revenue agrees that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner is covered by the High Court's judgment. However, the revenue notes that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been filed and notice issued in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The revenue requests liberty to revive the notice under Section 148 if the Apex Court interferes with the aforementioned judgments. The revenue does not appear to have raised any counter-arguments on the validity of the notice itself, beyond the request for liberty to revive.

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:36094-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16889/2022 Thar Share Brokers Private Limited, Having Office At F-32, Ajazad Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur- 302001 Through Its Director Mr. Ajay Gangwal S/o Annup Chand Gangwal, Aged About 53 Years, R/o 112, Kailash Puri, Tonk Road, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-6, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302005 2. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Through Chairperson, Type-7, Bungalow No. 75, New Moti Bagh, New Delhi- 110021 ----Respondents 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 29th 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 Offider (FAO) and this Court in the case of Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

[2025:RJ-JP:36094-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-16889/2022] & 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. 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 29th 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.

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/46 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)

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →