SUNIL KANSAL S/O PUNJAB RATAN KANSAL vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

PDF · subscribers
CW/8303/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02040318202301 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 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's decision was based on the ground that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which was held to be bad in law. This finding was supported by previous judgments of the High Court in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision in the pending SLPs concerning Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited differed from the High Court's ruling. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sunil Kansal, challenged a notice dated April 13, 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), rendering it invalid. The respondent, Income Tax Department, acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court. The respondent also mentioned that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed against the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and notice was issued. The respondent sought liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Apex Court's decision in related cases differed from the High Court's ruling.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated April 13, 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? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the Section 148 notice was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, which is contrary to established legal principles. 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, as well as the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), which held such notices to be invalid. Revenue's Contentions: The respondent agreed that one of the grounds was covered by the High Court's judgment. The respondent stated that an SLP had been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued. The respondent requested liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Apex Court's decision in the aforementioned cases differed from the High Court's ruling.

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. 8303/2023 Sunil Kansal S/o Punjab Ratan Kansal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 602, Radiant Casa, Near Jawahar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302017 ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Department, Itd Wd 6(4), Jpr, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302005 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajat Sharma, Mr. Shubhendra Singh & Mr. Saksham Pandey For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Ms. Jaya P. 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. 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 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-8303/2023]

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. 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 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/74

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →