ARVIND SHAH S/O LATE BHAG CHAND SHAH vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/6481/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02033897202201 September 2025Author: INDERJEET SINGH,ANIL KUMAR UPMAN2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the notice dated April 8, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad and not valid because it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). This finding is based on the Court's previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court acknowledged the revenue's submission regarding the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case and granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision impacts the aforementioned judgments. Consequently, since the Section 148 notice was deemed invalid, the assessment orders dated March 31, 2023, and April 11, 2023, which were passed pursuant to this notice, were also quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of with these directions, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Arvind Shah, challenged a notice dated April 8, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The challenge was based on the ground that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondents are the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and the Income Tax Officer. The High Court noted that assessment orders dated March 31, 2023, and April 11, 2023, were passed after the petition was filed. The core of the dispute revolves around the validity of the Section 148 notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated April 8, 2022, 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 and fact, concerning the procedure for issuing notices under Section 148). Assessee's Contention: The notice issued under Section 148 is bad and not valid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. The assessee relies on the judgment of this Court 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, Circle 15(1)(2). Revenue's Contention: The revenue agrees that one of the grounds raised is covered by a judgment of this Court. However, the revenue notes that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice has been issued. The revenue requests liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court interferes 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:34971-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6481/2022 Arvind Shah S/o Late Bhag Chand Shah, 2654, Shah Bhawan, Ghee Walo Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur-302003 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-1, Income-Tax Department, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (1), Income Tax Department, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.K. Kasliwal with Mr. Priyesh Kasliwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Sarvesh Jain, Mr. Meyhul Mittal & Mr. Rahul Kumar HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order 01/09/2025

1.

Mr. Bapna, who appears on advance copy, agrees with Mr. Kasliwal that one of the grounds raised certainly is covered by a judgment of this Court.

2.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 08th April 2022 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:34971-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-6481/2022]

3.

At the same time, Mr. Bapna 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. Kasliwal 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 08th April 2022 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.

We are informed that after the petition was filed, assessment orders dated 31st March 2023 and 11th April 2023 have already been passed. Since we have held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act itself is not valid, the consequential assessment orders cannot be sustained. The same are also quashed and set aside. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N.GANDHI/RAJAT/29

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →