BACK OFFICE IT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
CW/3375/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02014275202308 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 July 27, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court's decision was based on the established precedent of this Court in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, which held that notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are invalid. The court granted the revenue's request for liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision in the pending Special Leave Petition concerning Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) alters the legal position. The court explicitly stated that all rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. Any re-assessment order passed subsequently would also stand quashed and set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Back Office It Solutions Private Limited, challenged a notice dated July 27, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 7 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 the Assistant Commissioner, acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court. The revenue also informed the court that a Special Leave Petition had been filed before the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, which dealt with similar issues, and sought liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision differed.

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 bad in law and invalid? Assessee's Contention: The notice issued under Section 148 is invalid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, relying on the High Court's judgment in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another. Revenue's Contention: The revenue agreed that the ground raised by the assessee is covered by the High Court's judgment. However, they stated that a Special Leave Petition has been filed before the Apex Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) and requested liberty to revive the notice under Section 148 if the Apex Court's decision impacts the aforementioned judgments.

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:36112-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3375/2023 Back Office It Solutions Private Limited, F-220-225, Epip It Park, Sitapura, Jaipur 302022, Rajasthan Through Its Authorised Representative Samir Gandhi, S/o Late C.v. Gandhi, Aged About 56 Years, R/o E29A, Sumitra Path, Bani Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 7 Jaipur, Sidhnath Bhawan, Rajas, Jyoti Nagar Scheme, Lal Kothi Scheme, Behind New Vidhan Sabha, Janpath, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302015 Through Commissioner ----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 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 & 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:36112-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-3375/2023] 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/53 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 →