JAIKANT YADAV S/O UDAI NARAYAN YADAV vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/8088/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02039189202301 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 15, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision was based on the agreement by the respondent that the ground raised by the petitioner regarding the notice being issued by a JAO instead of an FAO was covered by previous judgments of the Court, specifically Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer. The Court also took into account the pendency of an SLP in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and the respondent's request for liberty. Accordingly, the Court granted the petitioner's prayer for quashing the notice, while preserving the Revenue's right to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision in the related SLP were to alter the existing legal position. The Court explicitly stated that all rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. Any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the impugned notice would also stand quashed and set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jaikant Yadav, challenged a notice dated April 15, 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-2(1), Ajmer, conceded that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the Court. The respondent also mentioned that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed against the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (a case relied upon), and notice had been issued. The respondent 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 dated April 15, 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 notice under Section 148 was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, which is contrary to established legal principles. The petitioner relied on the judgments of this Court in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others and Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2) to support this contention. Revenue's Contentions: The respondent agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a judgment of the Court. The respondent acknowledged that in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., an SLP had been filed and notice issued. The respondent requested that while the Court might grant the petitioner's prayer based on the current law, the Revenue should be granted liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Apex Court were to overturn 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. 8088/2023 Jaikant Yadav S/o Udai Narayan Yadav, Aged About 36 Years, House No. 143, Shakti Nagar Dadabari, Kota (Rajasthan)- 324009. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ito, Ward-2(1), Ajmer, Cr Building, Opp Session Court, Jaipur Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan, 305001. ----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 15th 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-8088/2023]

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 15th 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/69

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →