NIKHIL JAIN S/O ASHOK KUMAR JAIN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2

PDF · subscribers
CW/8039/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02039256202301 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated April 19, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision was based on the established precedent of this Court in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that a notice issued by a JAO instead of an FAO is invalid. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer for the present. However, acknowledging the revenue's submission regarding the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, the Court provided liberty to the revenue to revive the notice 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. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. Any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Nikhil Jain, challenged a notice dated April 19, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondents are the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur, and Income Tax Ward-6(2), Jaipur. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, heard the matter. The procedural history involves the petitioner filing a writ petition challenging the notice.

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 petitioner argued that the notice dated April 19, 2023, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. The petitioner 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, Circle 15(1)(2). Revenue's Contention: The revenue acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner is covered by the High Court's judgment. However, the revenue stated that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice has been issued. The revenue requested liberty to revive the notice under Section 148 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. 8039/2023 Nikhil Jain S/o Ashok Kumar Jain, R/o A-15, Shri Ji Nagar, Bhu Dev Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Jaipur, Income Tax Department, Ncrb, Statue Circle, Jaipur. 2. Income Tax Ward-6(2), Income Tax Department, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.K. Kasliwal with Mr. Priyesh Kasliwal 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. 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 19th 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-8039/2023]

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. 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 19th 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/67

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →