PARAS JAIN S/O BHAG CHAND JAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWER

PDF · subscribers
CW/13550/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02068847202301 September 2025Author: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice dated April 15, 2023, 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 precedent set by the Court in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice. However, in view of the pending Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, the Tribunal granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision impacts the validity of such notices. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. Consequently, any reassessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Paras Jain, challenged a notice dated April 15, 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 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Beawer, was the respondent. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, heard the matter. The respondent's counsel acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the Court. The respondent also mentioned that a Special Leave Petition had been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued by the Apex Court.

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 notice dated April 15, 2023, under Section 148 is invalid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. This contention is supported by the High Court's judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's Contention: The revenue acknowledged that the ground raised by the petitioner is covered by the High Court's judgment. However, the revenue noted that a Special Leave Petition has been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice has been issued. The revenue requested liberty to revive the Section 148 notice 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. 13550/2023 Paras Jain S/o Bhag Chand Jain, Aged About 43 Years, R/o 40, Bhajan Nagar Beawar, Rajasthan, India. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Beawer, 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 15th 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-13550/2023]

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 15th 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/97

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →