AJAY KUMAR SAND S/O LATE SH. MOHAN LAL SAND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/13560/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02068953202301 September 2025Author: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in agreement with the petitioner's counsel and acknowledging the respondent's submissions, quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court followed its previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, which held that such notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are invalid. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue 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. The Court explicitly stated that all rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. Any re-assessment order passed subsequently was also quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ajay Kumar Sand, challenged a notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), rendering it invalid. The respondent, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Alwar, acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by previous judgments of the High Court. The Revenue also noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed 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 aforementioned judgments.

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? 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, and therefore, it is bad and not valid. The petitioner relied on the High Court's judgments in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others and Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue agreed that one of the grounds raised was covered by a judgment of the Court. The Revenue stated that in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), an SLP had been filed, and notice had been issued. The Revenue requested 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.

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. 13560/2023 Ajay Kumar Sand S/o Late Sh. Mohan Lal Sand, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Ashiana Town, Block B-5, M-219, Thada, Near Bhiwadi, District Alwar 301019. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Alwar, Cr Building, Moti Doongri Road, Alwar, Rajasthan, 301001. ----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-13560/2023]

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/99

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →