SANDEEP STOCKS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/16886/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02091172202208 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated 29th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the assessee's contention that the notice, having been issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), was invalid, citing its own prior decisions in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sandeep Stocks Private Limited, challenged a notice dated 29th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Jaipur. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), rendering it invalid. The respondent revenue, represented by Mr. Sandeep Pathak, acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court. The revenue also mentioned that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed against the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and notice had been issued. The revenue sought liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court interfered with the existing judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated 29th July 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 bad in law and invalid? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the notice under Section 148 was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, which, according to this Court's judgment in Shree Cement Limited, following Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., makes the notice invalid. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue agreed that one ground was covered by a High Court judgment. While acknowledging the current legal position based on the cited judgments, the revenue stated that an SLP was filed in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and notice was issued. The revenue requested liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited.

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:36093-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16886/2022 Sandeep Stocks Private Limited, Having Office At Bajaj Nagar, Opposite Gandhi Nagar, Railway Station, Jaipur-302015 Through Its Authorized Representative Sandeep Sharma S/o Budhi Prakash Sharma, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 20-21, Bajaj Nagar Enclave, Jaipur-302015. ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Room No. 416, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302005. ----Respondent 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 29rd 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 & Others1 following Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax 1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported)

[2025:RJ-JP:36093-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-16886/2022] 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 29rd 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/45 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 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →