SUMAN DEVI W/O PRADEEP KUMAR vs. OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/19234/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02100116202208 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 22, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's decision was based on the established precedent in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are invalid. The Court granted the Revenue the liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court's decision in the pending SLP concerning Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (or related cases like Sharda Devi Chhajer and Shree Cement Limited) interferes with these judgments. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. Any re-assessment order passed subsequently would also stand quashed and set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Suman Devi, challenged a notice dated July 22, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), rendering it invalid. The Revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer and the Central Board of Direct Taxes, 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 a relevant High Court decision, and notice had been issued by the Supreme Court. The parties agreed to a course of action based on the current legal position and the pending SLP.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice 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 Contention: The notice dated July 22, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. This contention is supported by the High Court's judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue agreed that the ground raised by the assessee is covered by the High Court's judgment. However, the Revenue pointed out that an SLP has been filed against the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., and notice has been issued by the Supreme Court. The Revenue requested liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision in the SLP overturns the High Court's rulings.

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:36110-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19234/2022 Suman Devi W/o Pradeep Kumar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 08 Regro Ka Mohalla, Kulkatri Ka Bass, Karnipura Road, Sikar, Rajasthan, 332710. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Office Of Income Tax Officer, Ito Ward-1(1), Sikar, Todi Nagar, Sanwali Road, Sikar, Rajasthan, 332001. 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 22th 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:36110-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-19234/2022] 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 her 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 22th 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/52 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 →