PERFECT AGROFOOD PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/4570/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02020950202301 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice dated July 12, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid because it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). This decision was based on the High Court's prior rulings in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held such notices to be bad in law. Consequently, the assessment order dated May 25, 2023, which was consequential to the invalid notice, was also quashed and set aside. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer to quash the notice, reserving the revenue's right to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision in the pending SLP concerning Hexaware Technologies Ltd. differed from the High Court's judgments. All other rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Perfect Agrofood Private Limited, challenged a notice dated July 12, 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) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent, Income Tax Officer, ITO Wd 6 (2), Jaipur, conceded that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by existing judgments. The respondent also noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was pending before the Apex Court concerning a similar issue in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The parties agreed to a conditional quashing of the notice. An assessment order dated May 25, 2023, was passed after the petition was filed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated July 12, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid because it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the notice under Section 148 was bad in law and invalid as it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, relying on the High Court's judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue agreed that one of the grounds was covered by existing judgments. The revenue stated that an SLP was pending before the Apex Court in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case and requested liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision differed from the High Court's judgments. The revenue did not otherwise contest the invalidity of the notice based on the cited precedents.

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:34968-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4570/2023 Perfect Agrofood Private Limited, Having Its Address At Khasara No. 134/321, Village Mangarh, Khokhawala, Agra Road, Bassi, Jaipur - 303012, Rajasthan Through Its Authorized Representative Mr. Rajkumar Agarwal S/o Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 73 Years R/o D-38 Jyoti Marg, Bapu Nagar, Gandhi Nagar Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302015. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Ito Wd 6 (2), Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur -302005, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Sharma with Mr. Shubhendra Singh & Mr. Saksham Pandey For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Ms. Jaya P. Pathak & Mr. Palash Gupta HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order 01/09/2025

1.

Mr. 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 12th 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:34968-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-4570/2023] & 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. 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 12th 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.

We are informed that after the petition was filed, an assessment order dated 25th May 2023 has already been passed. Since we have held that the notice issued under Section 148 of 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)

[2025:RJ-JP:34968-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-4570/2023] the Act itself is not valid, the consequential assessment order cannot be sustained. The same is also quashed and set aside. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N.GANDHI/RAJAT/28

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →