BIHARI LAL AGARWAL S/O MOHAN LAL AGARWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/19849/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02101320202301 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 24, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was bad in law as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), relying on its own judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's judgment in 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 petition was disposed of, and any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bihari Lal Agarwal, challenged a notice dated April 24, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Jaipur. The challenge was based on the contention that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent revenue, represented by Mr. Pathak, agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court. The revenue also indicated that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued by the Apex Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated April 24, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is invalid and bad in law, as opposed to being issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The notice is invalid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. This contention is supported by the High Court's judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's Contention: The revenue agreed that the ground is covered by the High Court's judgment. However, they sought 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, as an SLP had been filed in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and notice issued.

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. 19849/2023 Bihari Lal Agarwal S/o Mohan Lal Agarwal, Aged About 63 Years, R/o 8A, Ratan Nagar Colony, Teen Dukan, Near Dher Ke Balaji, Jaipur, Jaipur 302039, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1), Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302005 ----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 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 24th 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-19849/2023]

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. 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 24th 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/164

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →