ANIL BANSAL S/O ROOP NARAYAN BANSAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/15579/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02079379202301 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, acknowledging the respondent's concession and the existing High Court judgments (Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer) which held notices issued by JAOs as invalid, quashed and set aside the notice dated April 11, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties. The ratio decidendi is that a notice under Section 148 issued by a JAO, in the context of the prevailing High Court pronouncements, is invalid, subject to potential future intervention by the Apex Court.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anil Bansal, challenged a notice dated April 11, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kishangarh. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent revenue, represented by Mr. Shantanu Sharma, conceded that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court. The revenue also noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed against the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and notice had been issued by the Apex Court. The revenue sought liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision altered the existing legal position.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated April 11, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is invalid, as opposed to being issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: - The notice under Section 148 of the Act is bad and not valid because it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). - Relied on the High Court's judgments 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's judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). Revenue's Contentions: - Agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner is covered by a judgment of this Court. - Acknowledged that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been preferred against the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and notice has been issued by the Apex Court. - Submitted that in view of the law as it stands today, the Court may grant the prayer of the petitioner but requested liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act in case the Apex Court interferes with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited.

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. 15579/2023 Anil Bansal S/o Roop Narayan Bansal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Chandra Colony, Ajmer Road, Madanganj- Kishangarh, Pin Code 305801, Dist. Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kishangarh, Kishangarh, Rajasthan, City Road, Kishangarh, Rajasthan 305801. ----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 11th 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-15579/2023]

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 11th 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/117

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →