ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA S/O MANNA LAL SHARMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/17311/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02087971202301 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal, in agreement with the petitioner's counsel and acknowledging the respondent's submissions, quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Court followed its own prior decisions in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, which held that notices issued by JAOs instead of FAOs under the faceless assessment scheme are invalid. The Court granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The petition was disposed of, and any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed. All other rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ashok Kumar Sharma, challenged a notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward (1) Churu. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), rendering it invalid. The respondent revenue, represented by Mr. Sandeep Pathak, acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the Rajasthan High Court. However, the revenue noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed and notice issued in a related case, Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). The revenue sought liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the existing judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated April 13, 2023, 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, concerning the validity of reassessment notices under the faceless regime). Assessee's Contention: The notice is invalid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, relying on the High Court's judgments in Shree Cement Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others and Sharda Devi Chhajer v. The Income Tax Officer & Another. Revenue's Contention: While acknowledging that the ground is covered by existing judgments, the revenue pointed out that an SLP has been filed in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), and sought liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision alters the current legal position.

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. 17311/2023 Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Manna Lal Sharma, Aged About 44 Years, R/o A-706 Aashirwad Gokul Karneshwar Group Of Housing Society, Mbs Marg, Kota, Rajasthan-324005 ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ito, Ward (1) Churu, Behind Collectorate, Shekhawat Colony, Churu, Rajasthan-331001 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajat Sharma, Mr. Shubhendra Singh & Mr. Saksham Pandey 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. 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 13th 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-17311/2023]

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. 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 13th 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/160

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →