HARISH MAHESHWARI S/O SHRI PRAKASH CHAND MAHESWARI vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/7366/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02034828202301 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 17, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court followed its previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that a notice issued by a JAO instead of an FAO under Section 148 is invalid. 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 if any re-assessment order were passed, it 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, Harish Maheshwari, challenged a notice dated April 17, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Jaipur. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), rendering it invalid. The respondent revenue acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by previous judgments of the High Court. The revenue also mentioned that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed against the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and notice had been issued. The revenue sought liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the existing judgments.

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) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is bad in law and invalid? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the notice under Section 148 was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, which is contrary to established High Court precedents, making the notice invalid. The assessee relied on the judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue conceded that one of the grounds raised by the assessee was covered by the High Court's judgment. However, the revenue pointed out that an SLP had been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued. The revenue requested liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Apex Court were to overturn the decisions in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Hexaware Technologies Ltd.

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. 7366/2023 Harish Maheshwari S/o Shri Prakash Chand Maheswari, Aged About 33 Years, Resident 34 Durgavihar Opp. Ram Mandir Tonk Road, 302011 Jaipur Also At Flat No. 401 Pristine Apartment, Gautami Enclave, Near Botanical Garden Hyderabad 500084, Telangana. ----Petitioner Versus Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ito Ward 6(2), Jaipur Having An Office New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302005 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prerit Goyal with Mr. Rohit Jain & Mr. Prashant Daga For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Ms. Jaya P. 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. Goyal 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. 1DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) 22025 SCCOnLine Raj 3386

[2025:RJ-JP:35135-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-7366/2023] Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2)3, has held that such a notice will be bad and not valid.

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. Goyal 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 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/35 3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →