NEELIMA SHARMA D/O GOPAL TAILOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/13543/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02068600202301 September 2025Author: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated April 17, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by its own judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding such notices issued by a JAO to be invalid. While the Revenue agreed with this position, it sought liberty to revive the notice should the Supreme Court overturn the relevant precedents (Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited). The Court granted this liberty. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. Consequently, any re-assessment order passed pursuant to this notice would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Neelima Sharma, challenged a notice dated April 17, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The challenge was based on the ground that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent is the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Beawar. The High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, heard the matter. The procedural history involves the petitioner filing a writ petition, and the respondent agreeing that one of the grounds raised was covered by a previous judgment of the Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated April 17, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is bad in law and invalid, as opposed to being issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, making it invalid. This contention is supported by judgments of the High Court in Shree Cement Limited, following Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's Contention: The respondent agreed that the ground was covered by the cited judgments. However, the Revenue noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued by the Apex Court. The Revenue requested liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the existing 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. 13543/2023 Neelima Sharma D/o Gopal Tailor, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Neelima Sharma 36A Shree Ambika, Bml Sharma Nagar Beawar Beawar 305901, Rajasthan. ----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 17th 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-13543/2023]

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 her 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 17th 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/94

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →