RAJESH DAGA SON OF SHRI SHANTI LAL DAGA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/3288/2025HC RajasthanRJHC02019045202508 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. This decision was based on the settled position of law as per the 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 reasoning is that the notice must be issued by the competent authority as prescribed by the Act and relevant rules. Consequently, the notice dated 19th March 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Act, was quashed and set aside. The Court did not delve into other grounds raised in the petition, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties, and noting that issues could be revisited if the Apex Court interferes with the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision. The operative direction was to quash and set aside the impugned notice.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajesh Daga, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Siddharth Ranka, initially stated that due to inadvertence, certain grounds were not raised, specifically 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 if permitted. The Court, referencing its own prior judgment in Shree Cement Limited and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., found that a Section 148 notice issued by the JAO instead of the FAO is indeed bad in law.

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? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: - The notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued by the JAO and not the FAO, rendering it invalid. (Relied on the principle that notices should be issued by the designated authority). Revenue's Contentions: - The respondent's counsel acknowledged that if the Court allows the petitioner to raise the ground regarding the notice being issued by the JAO and not the FAO, it would be a valid ground. (No specific authorities or precedents were cited by the revenue in the judgment regarding this point).

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:35885-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3288/2025 Rajesh Daga Son Of Shri Shanti Lal Daga, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of 304 Royal Ensine, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur Having Its Address At 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, 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.

3.

Mr. Siddharth Bapna, counsel for respondent in fairness states that, that would be a valid ground if the Court allows petitioner to raise.

[2025:RJ-JP:35885-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-3288/2025]

4.

Commissioner of Income Tax & Others1, has held, relying on grounds raised in the petition. 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 19th March 2024 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/23 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 →