RAJESH KUMAR SINGHAL S/O OMPRAKASH SINGHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/720/2025HC RajasthanRJHC02003067202501 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's decision was based on the established precedent in Shree Cement Limited, which relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that a Section 148 notice issued by a JAO, rather than an FAO, is invalid. The Court granted the revenue's request for liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to set aside the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice 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, Rajesh Kumar Singhal, challenged a notice dated April 21, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Alwar. The core of the challenge was that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent, the Income Tax Officer, acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court. The respondent also informed the Court that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed against the judgment in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, and notice had been issued by the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated April 21, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is invalid and bad in law, as opposed to being issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, making it invalid. This contention was supported by the High Court's judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's Contention: The respondent conceded that the ground raised by the petitioner was covered by the High Court's judgment. However, the respondent noted that an SLP had been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued by the Supreme Court. The revenue requested liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere 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. 720/2025 Rajesh Kumar Singhal S/o Omprakash Singhal, Aged About 53 Years, R/o 192/285, Kumabha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur, 302033 ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Alwar, Cr Building, Moti Doongri Road, Alwar, Rajasthan, 301001. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Gargieya with Mr. Devang Gargieya, Mr. Hemang Gargieya & Mr. Tarak Ahuja For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Ms. Jaya 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. 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 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. 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-720/2025]

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. 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 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/176

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →