DEEPAK MEHNDIRATTA S/O CHIMMAN LAL MENDIRATTA vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/7336/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02035621202301 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 21, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner's submission that the notice was bad in law as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), citing the precedent set in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the respondent's request for liberty to revive the notice. This liberty is contingent upon the outcome of the Special Leave Petition filed before the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment. If the Apex Court's decision modifies or overturns the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited, the Revenue will have the right to revive the notice. The Court explicitly stated that all other rights and contentions of both parties were kept open. Any reassessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Deepak Mehndiratta, challenged a notice dated April 21, 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, the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Alwar, did not dispute this ground. The respondent acknowledged that this specific issue was covered by previous judgments of the High Court. However, the respondent noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed against one of the relevant judgments, and notice had been issued by the Supreme Court. The respondent sought liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court's decision altered the existing legal position.

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 dated April 21, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. This contention was supported by the judgments in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. Revenue's Contention: The respondent agreed that the ground raised by the petitioner was covered by the High Court's judgments. However, the respondent pointed out that an SLP had been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued by the Supreme Court. The respondent requested liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court's decision altered the current legal position established by the cited High Court 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. 7336/2023 Deepak Mehndiratta S/o Chimman Lal Mendiratta, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Ab-99 Ist Floor, Ajmer Road Nirman Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Through Income Tax Officer, Ito Ward 1(1) Alwar Having An Office At C R Building, Moti Doongri Road, Alwar, 301001 Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Yaduvanshi 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. Yaduvanshi that one of the grounds raised certainly is covered by a judgment of this Court.

2.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 21st 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-7336/2023] 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. Yaduvanshi 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 21st 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/34 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 →