ASHWANI KUMAR HURKAT S/O RAMESH MAHESHWARI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/4459/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02024162202403 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 28, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, finding it invalid because it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). This decision was based on the Court's prior rulings in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Consequently, the assessment order dated March 13, 2024, which was consequential to the invalid notice, was also quashed and set aside. The Court granted the Revenue liberty to revive the notice under Section 148 if the Supreme Court were to overturn the judgments relied upon by the petitioner. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. The petition was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ashwani Kumar Hurkat, challenged a notice dated March 28, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a consequential assessment order dated March 13, 2024. The petitioner initially did not raise the ground that the notice was invalid because it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). However, the petitioner sought to raise this ground, and the Revenue did not object to an amendment. The Court noted its prior decisions in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held such notices to be invalid. The Revenue acknowledged this position but sought liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court overturned these judgments.

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 petitioner, through counsel, stated that the notice under Section 148 was invalid as it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. This contention was supported by the High Court's own precedents in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through counsel, acknowledged the High Court's view that such notices are invalid. However, the Revenue informed the Court that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, and notice had been issued. The Revenue requested liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Supreme Court were to interfere with 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
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4459/2024 Ashwani Kumar Hurkat S/o Ramesh Maheshwari, Aged About 41 Years, R/o 835, Nawab Sahib Ki Haweli, Tripolia Bazar, Jaipur 302003 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-4, Income Tax Department, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. PK Kasliwal with Mr. Priyesh Kasliwal For Respondents : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Sarvesh Jain & Mr. Meyhul Miittal HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order 03/09/2025

1.

At the outset, Mr. Kasliwal states that the legal ground that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not valid because it has been issued by Juri ictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Offider (FAO), has not been taken. Counsel states in the Court that petition is yet to be admitted and if the Court insists, petitioner will take out an application for adding grounds.

2.

Mr. Bapna states that since this Court has taken a view that such a notice will be invalid, he will not insist on formal amendment in the petition.

(2 of 3) [CW-4459/2024]

3.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 28th March 2023 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.

4.

At the same time, Mr. Bapna 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.

5.

Mr. Kasliwal states that in view of the above, for the present, petitioner will reserve his right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage.

6.

Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 28th March 2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty, as prayed.

7.

Since we have held that notice issued under Section 148 of the Act itself is not valid, the consequential assessment order 1DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) 22025 SCCOnLine Raj 3386 3[2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)

(3 of 3) [CW-4459/2024] dated 13th March 2024 cannot be sustained and the same also stands quashed and set aside.

8.

Petition disposed.

9.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ KAMLESH KUMAR-RAHUL/3

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →