MOHAMMAD. AARIF S/O BADRUDDIN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/7908/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02038081202301 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated April 12, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on the established precedent of the High Court in cases like Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are invalid. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer. However, the Revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to overturn the aforementioned judgments. The Court also stated that any reassessment order passed pursuant to this notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All other rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mohammad Aarif, challenged a notice dated April 12, 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 respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota, did not dispute this fact. The Rajasthan High Court had previously ruled in similar cases that such notices issued by JAOs are invalid. The Revenue, however, sought liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to overturn the decisions in related cases.

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 valid? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 was invalid because it was issued by a JAO, not an FAO. This contention was supported by previous judgments of the High Court. Revenue's Contentions: The respondent agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a High Court judgment. While acknowledging the current legal position, the Revenue sought liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the judgments in the cases of 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. 7908/2023 Mohammad. Aarif S/o Badruddin, Aged About 44 Years, R/o B- 12, Near Resonance, New Jawahar Nagar, Kota, (Raj)-324005 ----Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Dcit/acit, Circle-2, Kota, Central Revenue Building, 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-7908/2023]

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/60

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →