RAJESH VIJAY S/O BANWARI LAL VIJAY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/7791/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02037834202301 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 18, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's decision was based on the ground that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), a position that was covered by the High Court's own prior judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer. The Court acknowledged the revenue's submission regarding the SLP filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment and granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to overturn the precedents relied upon by the petitioner. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All other rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajesh Vijay, challenged a notice dated April 18, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent revenue acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a prior judgment of the High Court. The revenue also informed the court that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued by the Supreme Court.

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) is bad in law and invalid, as per the provisions of the Act and relevant judicial precedents. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 was issued by a JAO and not a FAO. They relied on the High Court's judgments in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others and Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another, which held such notices to be invalid. They also referred to 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 revenue agreed that one of the grounds was covered by the High Court's judgment. They stated that an SLP had been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued. The revenue requested liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme 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. 7791/2023 Rajesh Vijay S/o Banwari Lal Vijay, Aged About 46 Years, R/o C- 701, Ashirwad Anandam Society, Balaji Market, Kota-324005. ----Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Dcit/acit, Circle -2, Kota, Central Revenue Building, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota, Rajasthan 324009 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajat Sharma, Mr. Shubhendra Singh & Mr. Saksham Pandey 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. 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-7791/2023]

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. 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/44

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →