SANDEEP STOCKS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/15675/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02085512202208 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 29, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged that the ground raised by the petitioner was covered by its previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held such notices issued by JAOs to be invalid. However, considering the revenue's submission regarding the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case before the Apex Court, the Court granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision altered the legal position. The petitioner reserved its right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. The petition was disposed of, and any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sandeep Stocks Private Limited, challenged a notice dated July 29, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The challenge was primarily based on the ground that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, was hearing the writ petition. The parties agreed that one of the grounds raised was covered by a previous judgment of the Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated July 29, 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 invalid and liable to be quashed? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notice is bad and not valid, 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 and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). Revenue's Contention: The revenue agreed that one ground was covered by the Court's judgment. However, they stated that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, and notice had been issued by the Apex Court. The revenue requested liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision interfered with the existing 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:36069-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15675/2022 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 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Room No 416, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, LIC Building, 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 29th 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:36069-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-15675/2022] & 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 29th 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/40 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 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →