MANISH JAIN S/O NEMI CHAND JAIN vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/8861/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02041374202301 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 10, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the assessee's contention that such a notice issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is bad in law, following its own prior decisions in Shree Cement Limited, which in turn relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties. Any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manish Jain, through his Power of Attorney Holder, Ankit Jain, challenged a notice dated April 10, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The challenge was directed against the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Kishangarh, Ajmer. The primary contention was that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent revenue acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by existing judgments of the High Court. The revenue also noted that a Special Leave Petition had been filed in the Apex Court concerning a similar issue in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated April 10, 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? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notice issued by the JAO is invalid, relying on the High Court's judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer. The assessee also stated that they would reserve their right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. Revenue's Contention: The revenue agreed that one of the grounds was covered by a High Court judgment. They acknowledged that in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, a Special Leave Petition was filed and notice issued. The revenue requested liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with 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. 8861/2023 Manish Jain S/o Nemi Chand Jain, Aged About 38 Years, Permanent Resident Of 33, Jeevan Jyoti Nagar, Kishangarh, Ajmer. Through His Power Of Attorney Holder Ankit Jain S/o Nemi Chand Jain, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of 33, Jeevan Jyoti Nagar, Kishangarh, Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Through Income Tax Officer, Ito Ward 1, Kishangarh, Ajmer Having An Office At City Road, Kishangarh, Ajmer, Rajasthan 305801 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Yaduvanshi 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. Yaduvanshi that one of the grounds raised certainly is covered by a judgment of this Court.

2.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 10th 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-8861/2023]

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. Yaduvanshi 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 10th 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/79

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →