BABU LAL MISHRA S/O DAYA RAM MISHRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/16781/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02080336202301 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on the established law as laid down by the Rajasthan High Court in Shree Cement Limited, following Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that such notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are invalid. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer for the present. However, acknowledging the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies case, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies, Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed subsequently would also stand quashed and set aside. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Babu Lal Mishra, challenged a notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The challenge was based on the assertion that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent is the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Beawar. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, heard the matter. The procedural history involves the petitioner filing a writ petition to quash the notice.

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 petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 was issued by a JAO, not an FAO, and therefore, it is invalid. They relied on the High Court's judgment in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). Revenue's contention: The respondent agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner is covered by a judgment of the Court. However, they noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice has been issued. The Revenue requested liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Apex Court interferes with the aforementioned judgments.

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. 16781/2023 Babu Lal Mishra S/o Daya Ram Mishra, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Logistic Dept Shree Cement Ltd, Bangur Nagar Beawar Ajmer 305901, Rajasthan India. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Beawer, 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 13th 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-16781/2023]

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 13th 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/155

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →