KUSUM SHARMA D/O HARI NARAIN GOSWAMI vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

PDF · subscribers
CW/17976/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02096802202208 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated July 20, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner's submission that a notice issued by a JAO, rather than an FAO, is invalid, citing its own precedents in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the revenue the liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to rule differently in the pending SLP concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case. The Court explicitly stated that all rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. Consequently, any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kusum Sharma, challenged a notice dated July 20, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The challenge was primarily 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 Income Tax Department and the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, was seized of this writ petition. The procedural history involves the petitioner filing the writ petition to quash the notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated July 20, 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? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 was issued by a JAO, not an FAO, and therefore, it is invalid. The petitioner relied on the High Court's judgments in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others and Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by the High Court's judgment. The revenue acknowledged the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), which held such notices to be invalid. However, the revenue stated that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed in the Apex Court against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued. The revenue requested liberty to revive the Section 148 notice 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:36102-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17976/2022 Kusum Sharma D/o Hari Narain Goswami, Aged About 66 Years, R/o 49, Vivek Sharma, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302017 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Office Of The Income Tax Department, Ito Ward 6(3), New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das 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 20th 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 1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported)

[2025:RJ-JP:36102-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-17976/2022] 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 her 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 20th 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/50 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 →