BHARAT SINGH RATHORE S/O GIRDHARI SINGH RATHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/16154/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02080472202301 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 April 15, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was bad in law as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), citing the precedents of Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue 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. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All other rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bharat Singh Rathore, challenged a notice dated April 15, 2023, 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 respondent, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Beawar, did not dispute this ground. The respondent acknowledged that the issue was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court. However, the respondent noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued by the Apex Court. The respondent sought liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Apex Court's decision altered the existing legal position.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated April 15, 2023, 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? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, which is contrary to established legal principles. The petitioner relied on the High Court's judgments 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), which held such notices to be invalid. Revenue's Contentions: The respondent agreed that the ground raised by the petitioner was covered by the High Court's judgment. The respondent acknowledged that an SLP had been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued by the Apex Court. The respondent requested liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Apex Court's decision altered the current legal position.

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:35135-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16154/2023 Bharat Singh Rathore S/o Girdhari Singh Rathore, Aged About 46 Years, R/o 4/46, Sanket Nagar, Beawar 305901 (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Beawar, Court Campus, Ajmer Road, Beawar, Beawar, Rajasthan, 305901 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Gargieya with Mr. Devang Gargieya, Mr. Hemang Gargieya & Mr. Tarak Ahuja For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shantanu Sharma with Mr. Parth Vashishtha & Mr. Aditya Doda HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order 01/09/2025

1.

Mr. Sharma, who appears on advance copy, agrees with Mr. Gargieya that one of the grounds raised certainly is covered by a judgment of this Court.

2.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 15th April 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. 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:35135-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-16154/2023]

3.

At the same time, Mr. Sharma 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. Gargieya states that in view of the above, for the present, petitioner will reserve his 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 15th April 2023 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 N.GANDHI/RAJAT/150

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →