RAM BABU GUPTA SON OF RAM KISHORE KHANDELWAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/2999/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02015585202408 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 25, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court followed its previous decisions in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that notices issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) are invalid. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer to quash the notice, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties. Consequently, the assessment order dated March 18, 2024, which was consequential to the invalid notice, was also quashed and set aside. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in the cited cases. No other grounds were decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ram Babu Gupta, challenged a notice dated March 25, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Jaipur. The petitioner's counsel initially stated that the ground regarding the invalidity of the notice due to issuance by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) had not been taken but sought permission to amend the petition. The respondent's counsel acknowledged that the Court had previously held such notices to be invalid, referencing cases like Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The respondent also mentioned that a Special Leave Petition was pending before the Apex Court in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case and requested liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision altered the existing legal position.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 25, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid because it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? (Question of law). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner's counsel initially indicated this ground was not taken but sought to amend the petition. Subsequently, the petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. Revenue's Contention: The respondent's counsel acknowledged that the Court had taken a view that such notices are invalid, citing Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The respondent requested liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court, in its pending SLP concerning Hexaware Technologies Ltd., were to interfere with the judgments in the cited cases. The respondent did not formally argue for the validity of the notice but sought a conditional liberty.

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:35878-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2999/2024 Ram Babu Gupta Son Of Ram Kishore Khandelwal, Aged About 60 Years, Having His Address At C-87, Sethi Colony, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, 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 this Court has taken a view that such a notice will be invalid, he will not insist on formal amendment in the petition.

3.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 25th March 2022 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued

[2025:RJ-JP:35878-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-2999/2024] 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 25th March 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.

7.

Petition disposed.

8.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand 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:35878-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-2999/2024]

9.

Since we have held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act itself is not valid, the consequential assessment order 18th March 2024 cannot be sustained. The same is also quashed and set aside. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N.GANDHI/RAJAT/17

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →