RAKESH JAIN S/O MANAK CHAND JAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/10866/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02052605202301 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 12, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), and that this issue was covered by the High Court's own judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. 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. Consequently, any re-assessment order passed pursuant to this notice would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rakesh Jain, challenged a notice dated April 12, 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 respondent, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Beawar, did not dispute this contention. The respondent acknowledged that a similar issue was decided by the High Court in the case of Shree Cement Limited, which followed previous judgments in Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The respondent also mentioned that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, and notice had been issued by the Apex Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated April 12, 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 turning on Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 was issued by a JAO, not an FAO, and therefore it is bad in law and invalid, relying on the High Court's judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's Contentions: The respondent agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a judgment of the High Court. The respondent stated that in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., an SLP was filed and notice issued. The respondent requested liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The respondent did not dispute the invalidity of the notice based on the current High Court pronouncements.

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. 10866/2023 Rakesh Jain S/o Manak Chand Jain, Aged About 63 Years, R/o 21 A Officers Campus, Sirsi Road, Khatipura, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan, 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. 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. 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 12th 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-10866/2023] 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. 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 12th 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/32 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 →