AVADHESH PAREEK S/O OM PRAKASH SHARMA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/15594/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02079351202301 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 18, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged that the issue regarding the validity of a notice issued by a JAO instead of an FAO was covered by its own judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Revenue conceded this point. However, the Revenue sought liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Court granted this liberty. The Court also stated that if any re-assessment order is passed, it will 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, Avadhesh Pareek, challenged a notice dated April 18, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent is the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Ajmer. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), rendering it invalid. The Revenue, represented by Mr. Sharma, conceded that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the Court. The Revenue also noted 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, is invalid if issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The notice is bad in law and not valid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. This contention is supported by the High Court's judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue agreed that the ground raised by the petitioner is covered by a judgment of the Court. However, the Revenue stated that an SLP has been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice has been issued by the Supreme Court. The Revenue requested liberty to revive the Section 148 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. 15594/2023 Avadhesh Pareek S/o Om Prakash Sharma, Aged About 55 Years, R/o 10, Brahmpuri Colony, Opp Santoshi Mata Temple, Vijaynagar Road, Po Beawar 305901 ----Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner/assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2, Ajmer, Cr Building, Opp Session Court, Jaipur Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan 305001 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Gargieya with Mr. Devang Gargieya, Mr. Hemang Gargieya & Mr. Tarak Ahuja For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sheetanshu 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. 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 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-15594/2023]

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. 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 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/126

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →