MOHAMMED SHAKIL S/O SH. MOHAMMED HANIF vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/14431/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02077618202203 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 25, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's decision was based on the understanding that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which, according to the High Court's previous pronouncements in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., renders such a notice invalid. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The Court also stated that any reassessment order passed pursuant to this notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mohammed Shakil, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated July 25, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention, though not initially taken, was that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The petitioner's counsel indicated a willingness to amend the petition to include this ground. The Revenue's counsel acknowledged the High Court's stance on similar issues and agreed not to insist on a formal amendment, recognizing the potential invalidity of the notice based on existing precedents.

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 25, 2022, issued under Section 148 is invalid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. The petitioner relies on the High Court's decisions in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held such notices to be bad in law. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue acknowledged the High Court's view in similar cases. However, it was stated that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been filed in the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, and notice has been issued. The Revenue requested liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Apex Court's decision overturns the High Court's 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:35247-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14431/2022 Mohammed Shakil S/o Sh. Mohammed Hanif, Aged About 53 Years, R/o 04, Purani Tonk Pathano Ka Chock, Tonk 304021, Rajasthan, India. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward Tonk, Malpura Gate, Kala Baba, Tonk, Rajasthan - 304001. 2. Union Of India, Through Finance Secretary, Ministry Of Finance (Department Of Revenue), Central Board Of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Vijay Advocate on behalf of Mr. Jaideep Malik Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Sandeep Pathak Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Judgment 03/09/2025

1.

At the outset, Mr. Aditya Vijay 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. Sandeep Pathak 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.

[2025:RJ-JP:35247-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-14431/2022]

3.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 25th 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.

4.

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.

5.

Mr. Aditya Vijay 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 25th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty, as prayed.

7.

In case, if any, re-assessment order is passed, the same will also stand quashed and set aside. 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:35247-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-14431/2022]

8.

Petition disposed.

9.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT-Seema/20

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →