DENIM DEVELOPERS LIMITED vs. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CIRCLE- 2

PDF · subscribers
CW/16435/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02088814202208 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA3 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 acknowledged that the ground raised by the petitioner regarding the notice being issued by a JAO instead of an FAO was covered by its own previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, which followed the principle laid down in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The revenue, while agreeing with the petitioner on this point, sought liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to overturn the aforementioned judgments. The Court granted this liberty, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties. Consequently, any re-assessment order passed pursuant to this notice would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Denim Developers Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated July 27, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 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 respondents, represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and the Central Board of Direct Taxes, acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by existing judgments of the High Court. The revenue also informed the court that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed against a relevant judgment, and notice had been issued.

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 valid? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The notice dated July 27, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad in law and not valid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. The assessee relied on the judgments of this Court in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, and Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another, as well as the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). Revenue's Contention: The revenue agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a judgment of the Court. They stated that an SLP had been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued. The revenue requested liberty to revive the 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:36084-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16435/2022 Denim Developers Limited, Having Office At Flat N. 1273, Suwalka, Riddhi Siddhi Residency, Plot No 1-4, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar Extn., Road No. 1, I.p.i.a., Kota - 324 005, Rajasthan Through Its Authorized Representative Ms. Jaya Singh Rathod D/o Mr. Jai Singh Rathod, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 10A, R K Puram A, Anadpura, Phoota Talab, Kota - 324 005, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. Office Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Department, Circle- 2, Central Revenue Building, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota, Rajasthan - 324009 2. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Through Chairperson, Type-7, Bungalow No. 75, New Moti Bagh, New Delhi- 110021 3. Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Department, Circle- 1(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Sharma Advocate with Mr. Saksham Pandey Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Doda Advocate & Mr. Parth Vashishtha Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shantanu Sharma Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Judgment 08/09/2025

1.

Mr. Aditya Doda, 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.

[2025:RJ-JP:36084-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-16435/2022]

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 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. Aditya Doda 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. 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)

[2025:RJ-JP:36084-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-16435/2022]

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/42

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →