PRIYANK KUMAR SAHU S/O RAJESH KUMAR SAHU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/13530/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02068840202301 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision was based on the established precedent that such notices issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, rather than a Faceless Assessing Officer, are considered invalid. The Court acknowledged the revenue's submission regarding the pending SLP against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment and granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision impacts the current ruling. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to this notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. The petition was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Priyank Kumar Sahu, challenged a notice dated April 13, 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 Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, considered the matter. The revenue acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by existing 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, considering the established jurisprudence on faceless assessment proceedings? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The notice is bad and not valid because it was issued by a JAO and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (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, 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 Contention: The revenue agreed that the ground raised by the petitioner is covered by a judgment of the Court. However, the revenue noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been preferred against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice has been issued. The revenue requested liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 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. 13530/2023 Priyank Kumar Sahu S/o Rajesh Kumar Sahu, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Ho No. 05, Near Rashidia School Barkhedi Bhopal Mdhya Pradesh India. ----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. 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. Shantanu Sharma, who appears on advance copy, agrees with Mr. Mahendra 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-13530/2023]

3.

At the same time, Mr. Shantanu 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. Mahendra 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/89

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →