SOURABH JAIN S/O KEWAL CHAND JAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/13833/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02068890202301 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Court held that the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was bad and not valid, as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). This finding was based on the Court's previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court quashed and set aside the notice. However, acknowledging the Revenue's submission regarding the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. Consequently, any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sourabh Jain, challenged a notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The challenge was based on the assertion 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-1, Beawar. The High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, considered the matter. The procedural history involves the petitioner filing a writ petition challenging the validity of the Section 148 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 bad in law and invalid? (Question of law). Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the notice dated April 13, 2023, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, making it invalid. 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 respondent (Revenue) agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a judgment of the Court. 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 Section 148 notice 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:35135-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13833/2023 Sourabh Jain S/o Kewal Chand Jain, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Outside Nehru Gate, Near Gahlot Needam, Near Kiran Medicals, Khanna Colony, Beawar. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Beawar, Court Campus, Ajmer Road, Beawar, Beawar, Rajasthan, 305901 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Gargieya with Mr. Devang Gargieya, Mr. Hemang Gargieya & Mr. Tarak Ahuja For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Ms. Jaya 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. Gargieya 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-13833/2023]

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. Gargieya 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/108

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →