KAPIL BAFNA S/O PRAKASH BAFNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/7912/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02038048202301 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 12, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court acknowledged that the ground raised by the petitioner regarding the notice being issued by a JAO instead of an FAO was covered by its own judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer. The court also noted the pendency of an SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case before the Apex Court. Consequently, the court granted the revenue liberty 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 court kept open all rights and contentions of the parties. Any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kapil Bafna, challenged a notice dated April 12, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kota. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent revenue, represented by Mr. Shantanu Sharma, agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court. The revenue also informed the court that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed and notice issued in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), which was relied upon by the petitioner. The revenue sought liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated April 12, 2023, 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 turning on Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 was invalid as it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. This contention was supported by the High Court's judgments in Shree Cement Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, following Sharda Devi Chhajer v. The Income Tax Officer & Another, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). Revenue's Contentions: The revenue agreed that one ground was covered by a High Court judgment. However, they informed the court that an SLP was pending before the Apex Court in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case. The revenue requested liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Apex Court's decision in the aforementioned cases were to be altered.

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. 7912/2023 Kapil Bafna S/o Prakash Bafna, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 165 - Bafna Sadan Bhata Pada Lambi Gali Rampura Bazaar, Kota, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ito, Ward-2(2), Kota, Dainik Navjyoti, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota, Rajasthan-324009 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajat Sharma, Mr. Shubhendra Singh & Mr. Saksham Pandey For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shantanu Sharma with Mr. Parth Vashishtha & Mr. Aditya Doda HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order 01/09/2025

1.

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

2.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 12th 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-7912/2023]

3.

At the same time, Mr. Sharma 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. Jhanwar 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 12th 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/61

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →