PARSHVANATH FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

PDF · subscribers
CW/16879/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02091069202208 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Rajasthan High Court, bench at Jaipur, quashed and set aside the notice dated July 27, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's decision was based on the ground that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which was held to be bad in law by this Court in previous judgments, including Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Supreme Court's decision in the SLP filed in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (or related cases) alters the prevailing legal position. The Court also stated that if any re-assessment order is passed, it will also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Parshvanath Finvest Private Limited, challenged a notice dated July 27, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The Income Tax Department (respondent) acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by previous judgments of the Rajasthan High Court. The respondent also mentioned that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed by the Revenue in a related case (Hexaware Technologies Ltd.) and notice had been issued by the Supreme Court. The respondent sought liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court's decision altered the existing legal position.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated July 27, 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 valid and not bad in law? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The notice is bad and not valid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. This contention is supported by judgments of the Rajasthan High Court in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue agreed that one ground was covered by this Court's judgment. However, they pointed out that in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., an SLP was filed and notice issued by the Supreme Court. The Revenue requested liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court's decision in the aforementioned cases alters the current legal position.

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:36090-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16879/2022 Parshvanath Finvest Private Limited, Having Office At F-32, F-32, Ajad Marg, Behind, Bjp Ofice, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302001 Through Its Director Mr. Ajay Gangwal S/o Anup Chand Gangwal, Aged About 53 Years, R/o 112, Kailash Puri, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Department, Ito Wd 6(2), 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 27th 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

[2025:RJ-JP:36090-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-16879/2022] & 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.

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 its 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 27th 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/44 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)

More judgments on Section 148

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →