ARUN KUMAR BANTHIA S/O PREMCHAND BANTHIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/20822/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02105908202301 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This decision was based on the agreement by the Revenue that the ground raised by the petitioner was covered by the Court's judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. These judgments held that a notice issued by a JAO, rather than an FAO, would be invalid. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer to quash the notice. However, acknowledging the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies case, the Court provided liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Arun Kumar Banthia, challenged a notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent is the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Beawar. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, was considering this writ petition. The Revenue acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by previous judgments of the Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is invalid and bad in law, as opposed to being issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? Assessee's Contention: The notice is bad and not valid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. The assessee relies on 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, and the Bombay High Court judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). Revenue's Contention: The Revenue agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner is covered by the Court's judgment. However, the Revenue noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice has been issued by the Apex Court. The Revenue requested liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court interferes with the aforementioned 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. 20822/2023 Arun Kumar Banthia S/o Premchand Banthia, Aged About 39 Years, R/o A408, Samriddhi, Indralok 8, Bhayander East, Thane 401105 Maharashtra India. ----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 13th 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-20822/2023]

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 13th 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/167

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →