REVATI RAMAN SHARMA S/O OM PRAKASH SHARMA vs. HARDAYAL SINGH RATHORE, INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/8569/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02041599202301 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 18, 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 notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are invalid. However, acknowledging the revenue's submission regarding the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case before the Supreme Court, the Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision impacts the validity of the High Court's pronouncements. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. Consequently, any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Revati Raman Sharma, challenged a notice dated April 18, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 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 revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer and the Central Board of Direct Taxes, acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court. However, the revenue noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed against the judgment in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, and notice had been issued by the Supreme Court. The revenue sought liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Supreme Court's decision altered the existing legal position.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated April 18, 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? Assessee's Contention: The notice is invalid because it was not issued by the designated Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as per the prevailing procedures. The assessee relies on the High Court's judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's Contention: The revenue concedes that the ground is covered by the High Court's judgment. However, it points out that an SLP has been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice has been issued by the Supreme Court. The revenue requests liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Supreme Court's decision overturns the High Court's rulings in the cited cases.

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. 8569/2023 Revati Raman Sharma S/o Om Prakash Sharma, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of 30-A, Ved Villa-C, Ramnagar Extension Hawa Sadak, Near Chitransh Public School, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Pincode - 302019. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Hardayal Singh Rathore, Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (3), Jaipur, Room No. 208, 2Nd Floor, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur- 302005, Rajasthan, India. 2. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110011, Delhi, India Through Its Chairman. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naman Jain 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. Jain that one of the grounds raised certainly is covered by a judgment of this Court.

2.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 18th 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. 1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) 2 2025 SCCOnLine Raj 3386

[2025:RJ-JP:35135-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-8569/2023] 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. Jain 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 18th 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/78 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 →