MAHESH MORDIA S/O SH. PARASRAM MORDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/18719/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02099629202208 September 2025Author: MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated July 26, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's argument that the notice was issued by a JAO instead of an FAO, which, according to the Court's previous pronouncements in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., would render such a notice invalid. The Court granted the revenue's request for liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to alter the position of law in the pending SLP concerning Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the impugned notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. The petition was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mahesh Mordia, challenged a notice dated July 26, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The challenge was based on the assertion 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-6(2), Jaipur. The High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, was hearing the writ petition. The procedural history involves the parties agreeing that one of the grounds raised was covered by a previous judgment of the Court.

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 petitioner argued that the notice dated July 26, 2022, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad and invalid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. The petitioner relied on the judgments of this Court in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others and Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another, as well as the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). Revenue's Contention: The respondent agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a judgment of the Court. However, the revenue noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been preferred against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued. The revenue requested liberty to revive the notice under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments.

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:36104-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18719/2022 Mahesh Mordia S/o Sh. Parasram Mordia, Aged About 42 Years, R/o 301, B-2, Anukampa Atlantis, 22 Godown, Jaipur-302005, Rajasthan, India. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Jaipur, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Vijay 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. 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 26th 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 & 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:36104-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-18719/2022]

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. Aditya Vijay 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 26th 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/51

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →