LOVENESH MEWARA S/O NEELKANTH MERWARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/7810/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02037845202301 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 decision was based on the established position of law as laid down by the High Court in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, which held that notices issued by JAOs instead of FAOs are invalid. The court acknowledged the Revenue's submission regarding the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case and granted the Revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court's decision altered the current legal position. The court also stated that any reassessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Lovenesh Mewara, challenged a notice dated April 12, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The challenge was directed against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota. The primary contention was that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, was considering this writ petition. The revenue acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by existing High Court 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 invalid and bad in law? (Question of law). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that such a notice is invalid, relying 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. The petitioner also implicitly relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). Revenue's Contention: The respondent (Revenue) agreed that the ground was covered by the High Court's judgment. However, the Revenue noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued by the Supreme Court. The Revenue sought liberty to revive the Section 148 notice 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. 7810/2023 Lovenesh Mewara S/o Neelkanth Merwara, Aged About 46 Years, R/o 87-A, Ballabhbari, Gumanpura Behind Police Chowki, Kota, Rajasthan-324007 ----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-7810/2023]

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/46

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →