ANITA PAHWA (AY 2018-19) D/O OM PRAKASH BATRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/15583/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02083322202401 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 that one of the grounds was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court, quashed and set aside the notices dated August 27, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on the High Court's decision in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that such notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are invalid. The court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notices if the Apex Court were to set aside the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The court explicitly stated that all other rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. The petition was disposed of, and any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anita Pahwa, challenged a notice dated August 27, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2018-19. The challenge was based on the contention that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent is the Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur. The High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, considered the matter. The procedural history involves the issuance of the notice and the subsequent writ petition filed by the assessee.

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 assessee argued that the notice dated August 27, 2024, under Section 148 of the Act is bad and not valid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. The assessee relied on 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, through its counsel, agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by the High Court's judgment. However, the revenue noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been preferred against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, 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 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:34965-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15583/2024 Anita Pahwa (Ay 2018-19) D/o Om Prakash Batra, Aged About 56 Years, R/o 183, Bhag Singh Ka Chauraha, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302004. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(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. 1DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) 22025 SCCOnLine Raj 3386

[2025:RJ-JP:34965-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-15583/2024] 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/23 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 →