SHASHI KALA SOLANKI (AY 2018-19) D/O BADRI NARAYAN RAKECHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/15607/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02083308202401 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal, acknowledging the agreement between the parties and the existing High Court precedent, quashed and set aside the notices dated August 27, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court followed its own previous decisions in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO under Section 148 are invalid. However, to account for potential future developments in the Apex Court, the revenue was granted liberty to revive the notices if the Supreme Court were to overturn the relevant High Court judgments. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. Consequently, any reassessment order passed pursuant to these notices would also stand quashed and set aside. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shashi Kala Solanki, is challenging notices dated August 27, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner contends that these notices were issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent is the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Jaipur. The matter came before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. The revenue acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court.

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 bad in law and invalid? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The notice dated August 27, 2024, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid as it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. This contention is supported by the High Court's judgment 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. Revenue's Contention: The revenue agreed that one ground was covered by the High Court's judgment. However, it noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed in the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, and notice had been issued. The revenue requested liberty to revive the notices issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited.

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:34965-DB] 0HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15607/2024 Shashi Kala Solanki (Ay 2018-19) D/o Badri Narayan Rakecha, Aged About 63 Years, R/o 70, Tonk Road, Muktanand Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302018. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), New Central Revenue Building, Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vedant Agarwal with Mr. Shreshth Vardhan 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. Vedant Agarwal that one of the grounds raised certainly is covered by a judgment of this Court.

2.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 27th August 2024 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. 1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) 2 2025 SCCOnLine Raj 3386

[2025:RJ-JP:34965-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-15607/2024] Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2)3, has held that such a notice will be bad and not valid.

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 notices issued under Section 148 of the Act.

4.

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

5.

Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notices dated 27th August 2024 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/22 3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →