ANIL KUMAR MEHTA S/O HUKMI CHAND MEHTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/13852/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02068960202301 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 20, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner's contention that the notice, issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), was invalid, following the precedents set in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer for relief. However, in light of the pending SLP in the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, the revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision altered the existing legal position. The Court explicitly stated that all other rights and contentions of both parties were kept open. Any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anil Kumar Mehta, challenged a notice dated April 20, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent is the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Beawer. The core of the challenge was that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The petitioner relied on previous judgments of the Rajasthan High Court and the Bombay High Court which held such notices to be invalid. The revenue acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by existing High Court 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 invalid? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice dated April 20, 2023, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. This, according to the petitioner, renders the notice bad in law and invalid, citing 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 Contentions: The revenue, through its counsel, agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a judgment of this Court. While acknowledging the current legal position, the revenue noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed in the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case. The revenue requested liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision differed from the High Court 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:35135-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13852/2023 Anil Kumar Mehta S/o Hukmi Chand Mehta, Aged About 49 Years, R/o 174, Mahamandir Gali, Pipliya Bazar, Beawar. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Beawer, 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. Sandeep Pathak with Ms. Jaya 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. 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 20th 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-13852/2023]

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. 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 20th 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/109

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →