SUBHASH PARWAL S/O JAGDISH PRASAD PARWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/3933/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02019333202408 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is bad in law and liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the settled position of law as per the High Court's own recent judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which in turn relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court found that the notice dated 29th March 2023, issued under Section 148, was indeed issued by the JAO and not the FAO. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that it was not delving into other grounds raised by the petitioner, including the absence of DIN, and kept all rights and contentions of the parties open, subject to any future intervention by the Apex Court in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case. The operative direction was to quash and set aside the impugned notice.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Subhash Parwal, challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4 Jaipur. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Siddharth Ranka, initially sought to raise additional grounds, including that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent's counsel, Mr. Siddharth Bapna, acknowledged this as a potentially valid ground. The High Court, in light of its prior judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., found the notice issued by the JAO to be bad.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is invalid? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the JAO and not the FAO, rendering it invalid. This was presented as a significant ground, though initially not formally raised. Revenue's Contention: The respondent acknowledged that if the Court allows the petitioner to raise the ground regarding the JAO issuing the notice, it would be a valid argument. The revenue did not otherwise contest this specific point during the proceedings. Other issues, such as the notice being issued without a Document Identification Number (DIN), were not delved into by the Court.

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:35875-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3933/2024 Subhash Parwal S/o Jagdish Prasad Parwal, Aged About 67 Years, Having His Address At M-69 Mahesh Colony Tonk Phatak Jaipur 302015 ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-4 Jaipur Having Its Address At Room No. 416, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Ranka with Mr. Rohan Chatter For Respondent : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Sarvesh Jain, Mr. Meyhul Mittal & Mr. Rahul Kumar HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order 08/09/2025

1.

Mr. Siddharth Ranka, counsel for petitioner states that due to inadvertence, certain grounds have not been raised and more importantly, the ground that notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO).

2.

Mr. Ranka states that if the Court would insist, he is ready to file an application for adding grounds or tender draft amendment or as per law laid down, ready to even argue without the ground being specifically spelt out in writing.

[2025:RJ-JP:35875-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-3933/2024]

3.

Commissioner of Income Tax & Others1, has held, relying on has been issued without DIN and hence, not valid. If the Hon’ble Apex Court interferes in the decision of High Court of Bombay in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), parties may rekindle all issues. Keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties, notice dated 29th March 2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act is quashed and set aside.

8.

Petition allowed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N.GANDHI/RAJAT/14 1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) 2 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 255 (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 →