ASHWANI GUPTA S/O SHRI HARI NARAYAN AGARWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/5968/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02030609202408 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 26, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's decision was based on the prevailing view that notices issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) are invalid, as previously held in cases like Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice, as prayed, in the event the Supreme Court were to overturn these judgments. The petition was disposed of, and any pending applications were also disposed of. The Court also stated that if any re-assessment order were passed, it would also stand quashed and set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ashwani Gupta, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 26, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention, though initially not formally raised, was that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur, acknowledged that the High Court had previously held such notices to be invalid. The respondent sought liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to overturn these prior judgments.

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 valid. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner initially did not formally raise this ground but indicated willingness to amend the petition. However, the respondent conceded that the Court had taken a view that such notices are invalid. Revenue's Contention: The respondent acknowledged the High Court's view on the invalidity of such notices. However, they pointed out that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Shree Cement Limited) and notice had been issued. The respondent 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:35886-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5968/2024 Ashwani Gupta S/o Shri Hari Narayan Agarwal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o P.no. 13, Shubham Enclave, Civil Lines Phatak, C- Scheme Jaipur-302001. ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur Having Its Address, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Vijay For Respondent(s) : 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.

At the outset, Mr. Aditya Vijay states that the legal ground that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not valid because it has been issued by Juri ictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), has not been taken. Counsel states in the Court that petition is yet to be admitted and if the Court insists, petitioner will take out an application for adding grounds.

2.

Mr. Bapna states that since this Court has taken a view that such a notice will be invalid, he will not insist on formal amendment in the petition.

[2025:RJ-JP:35886-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-5968/2024]

3.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 26th March 2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued by a Juri ictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (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.

4.

At the same time, Mr. Bapna 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.

5.

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.

6.

Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 26th March 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.

7.

Petition disposed. 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:35886-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-5968/2024]

8.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed.

9.

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 N.GANDHI/RAJAT/15

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →