RAM NARAYAN DANI S/O BHAGWAN DAS DANI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/13516/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02069017202301 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal, acknowledging the agreement between the parties that one of the grounds was covered by existing High Court judgments, decided to quash and set aside the notice dated April 24, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Act. The reasoning was based on the precedent set by this Court in Shree Cement Limited, following Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that a notice issued by a JAO instead of an FAO is bad in law and invalid. The Tribunal granted the petitioner's prayer for the present, quashing the notice. However, it also granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice 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 Tribunal explicitly stated that all rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. Any re-assessment order passed subsequently would also stand quashed and set aside. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the liberty granted to the Revenue implies a potential future challenge.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ram Narayan Dani, challenged a notice dated April 24, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The challenge was based on the ground that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent is the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Ajmer. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, was hearing the writ petition. The procedural history involves the petitioner filing the writ petition to quash 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 valid? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notice dated April 24, 2023, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid because it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The assessee relied on the High Court's judgments in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, 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 Revenue, through its counsel, agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by the High Court's judgment. 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 notice under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere 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. 13516/2023 Ram Narayan Dani S/o Bhagwan Das Dani, Aged About 62 Years, R/o 5 Bhanwar Niwas, Lalan Gali, Near Ajmeri Gate, Beawar- 305901. ----Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner/assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Ajmer, Cr Building, Opp Session Court, Jaipur Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan, 305001. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Gargieya with Mr. Devang Gargieya, Mr. Hemang Gargieya & Mr. Tarak Ahuja 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. Shantanu Sharma, who appears on advance copy, agrees with Mr. Mahendra 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 24th 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. 1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) 2 2025 SCCOnLine Raj 3386

[2025:RJ-JP:35135-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-13516/2023] Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2)3, has held that such a notice will be bad and not valid.

3.

At the same time, Mr. Shantanu 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. Mahendra 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 24th 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/31 3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →