RADHA MOHAN MAHESHWARI SON OF BADRI NARAIN TOTLA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/4070/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02021717202408 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 and must be quashed and set aside. This decision was based on the settled position of law as established by the Rajasthan High Court in Shree Cement Limited and the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court found that the notice dated 26th March 2023, issued under Section 148, was indeed issued by the JAO and not the FAO. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that it was not delving into other grounds raised in the petition. It also noted that if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., parties would be at liberty to rekindle all issues. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Radha Mohan Maheshwari, 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 certain grounds were inadvertently omitted, particularly the ground that the Section 148 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 valid ground if permitted. The Court, referencing its own prior decision in Shree Cement Limited and the Bombay High Court's ruling in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., agreed that a Section 148 notice issued by a JAO instead of an FAO would be invalid.

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 petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued by the JAO and not the FAO, rendering it invalid. The petitioner was ready to argue this ground, even if not formally amended in the petition. Revenue's Contentions: - The respondent's counsel conceded that if the Court allowed the petitioner to raise the ground regarding the notice being issued by the JAO, it would be a valid ground. The revenue did not present any arguments against this specific 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:35881-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4070/2024 Radha Mohan Maheshwari Son Of Badri Narain Totla, Aged About 54 Years, Having His Address 302-303, Guru Kripa Building, Telipara Ka Rasta, Jaipur 302001. ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur Having Its Address At Room No. 416, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi, 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:35881-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-4070/2024]

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 26th March 2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act is quashed and set aside.

8.

Petition allowed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N.GANHI/RAJAT/19 1DB 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 →