KAMAL SINGH S/O SHRI DALIP SINGH vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/6600/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02032345202301 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

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 its prior rulings in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that notices issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) are invalid. The Court granted the Revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court, in its pending decision on the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, were to interfere with the High Court's judgments. The Court also stated that any reassessment 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, Kamal Singh, challenged a notice dated April 18, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The Revenue acknowledged that the High Court had previously held such notices to be invalid in cases like Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. However, the Revenue noted that a Special Leave Petition was pending before the Supreme Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment. The parties agreed to proceed with the present petition based on the existing High Court precedents, with the Revenue reserving the right to revive the notice if the Supreme Court's decision differed.

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 invalid? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The notice dated April 18, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid because it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The petitioner relied on the High Court's decisions 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, Circle 15(1)(2). Revenue's Contention: The Revenue acknowledged the High Court's stance in the cited cases. However, they informed the Court that a Special Leave Petition had been filed and notice issued by the Apex Court in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case. The Revenue requested liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Supreme Court's decision overturned the High Court's 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. 6600/2023 Kamal Singh S/o Shri Dalip Singh, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of A-44, Dadudayal Nagar, Mansarovar Extension, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Through Income Tax Officer, Ito Ward 5(1), Jaipur Having An Office New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302005 ----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.

At the outset, Mr. Yaduvanshi states that the legal ground that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not valid because it has been issued by Juri ictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Offider (FAO), has not been taken. Counsel states in the Court that petition is yet to be admitted and if the Court insists, petitioner will take out an application for adding grounds.

2.

Mr. Pathak states that since there is a group of almost 150 matters today on the same ground and this Court has taken a view that such a notice will be invalid, he will not insist on formal amendment in the petition.

[2025:RJ-JP:35135-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-6600/2023]

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

Mr. Kasliwal states that in view of the above, for the present, petitioner will reserve his right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage.

6.

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.

7.

Petition disposed. 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] (3 of 3) [CW-6600/2023]

8.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed.

9.

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/33

More judgments on Section 148

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →