SANJAY KUMAR TOMAR S/O SATENDRA PAL SINGH TOMAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO

PDF · subscribers
CW/7897/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02038241202301 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice dated April 18, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad and not valid because it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). This finding is based on the precedent set by this Court in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, which relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). The Court quashed and set aside the notice. However, in view of the pending SLP in the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, the Revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision impacts the validity of the notices issued by JAOs. The petition was disposed of with this liberty, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties. Any re-assessment order passed subsequently would also stand quashed and set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Tomar, challenged a notice dated April 18, 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, Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Jaipur, appeared on advance copy. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, considered the matter. The procedural history involves the petitioner filing a writ petition challenging the validity of the notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated April 18, 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? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the notice is invalid because it was issued by a JAO, not an FAO, relying on this Court's judgments 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 is covered by a judgment of this Court. However, the Revenue 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 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. 7897/2023 Sanjay Kumar Tomar S/o Satendra Pal Singh Tomar, Aged About 53 Years, R/o 49 Shankar Colony Naya Kheda Ambabari Jaipur, Rajasthan. 302039 ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ito, Ward-4(2), Jpr, 2Nd Floor, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302005 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajat Sharma, Mr. Shubhendra Singh & Mr. Saksham Pandey 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. 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 18th 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-7897/2023]

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. 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 18th 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/57

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →