AMIT KABRA S/O RAM LAXMAN KABRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/7849/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02038085202301 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 11, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court's decision was based on the agreement by both parties that the ground raised by the petitioner, concerning the issuance of the notice by a JAO instead of an FAO, was covered by previous judgments of the High Court, specifically Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer. The court acknowledged the revenue's submission regarding the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case and granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to set aside the judgments relied upon by the petitioner. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. The petition was disposed of, and any re-assessment order passed was also to stand quashed and set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Amit Kabra, challenged a notice dated April 11, 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). The respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota, appeared before the High Court. The court noted that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the same court. The respondent agreed that the ground was covered by precedent but sought liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments relied upon.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice 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 Contention: The assessee argued that the notice dated April 11, 2023, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, making it invalid. The assessee relied on the High Court's judgments in Shree Cement Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, agreed that the ground raised was covered by the cited judgments. However, the revenue noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, and notice had been issued. The revenue requested liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments 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. 7849/2023 Amit Kabra S/o Ram Laxman Kabra, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 845, Shastri Nagar, Kota (Raj)-324009 ----Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Dcit/acit, Circle -2, Kota, Central Revenue Building, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota, Rajasthan- 324009 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajat Sharma, Mr. Shubhendra Singh & Mr. Saksham Pandey 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. Jhanwar 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-7849/2023]

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. Jhanwar 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/49

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →