PRAMOD JAIN S/O SHANTILAL JAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/16793/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02080474202301 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 15, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice, having been issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), was bad in law, following its own previous decisions in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's decision 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 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, Pramod Jain, challenged a notice dated April 15, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent is the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Beawer. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), rendering it invalid. The respondent's counsel agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the Court. The respondent also mentioned that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed against the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and notice had been issued. The respondent sought liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Apex Court interfered with the aforementioned judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated April 15, 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 petitioner contended that the notice under Section 148 was issued by a JAO, not an FAO, and therefore, it is bad in law and not valid, relying on the judgments of this Court in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others and Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another, as well as the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). Revenue's Contentions: The respondent agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a judgment of the Court. The respondent stated that in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Revenue had preferred an SLP and notice had been issued. The respondent submitted that, in view of the law as it stands today, the Court may grant the petitioner's prayer but should grant liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court interferes with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited.

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. 16793/2023 Pramod Jain S/o Shantilal Jain, Aged About 41 Years, R/o 3/134 Saket Nagar Housing Board Beawar, Beawar 305901, Rajasthan India. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Beawer, Rajasthan, 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. 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. 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 15th 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-16793/2023]

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. 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 15th 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/156

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →