NAVEEN MENARIA S/O ONKAR LAL MENARIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/7906/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02037863202301 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 17, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This decision was based on the established precedent of this Court in Shree Cement Limited, which followed the rulings in Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are invalid. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer for the present. However, acknowledging the pendency of an SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case before the Apex Court, the Revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Supreme Court were to alter the position of law established in the cited judgments. The Court also stated that any reassessment 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, Naveen Menaria, challenged a notice dated April 17, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The challenge was based on the assertion that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent is the Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Jaipur. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, heard the matter. The procedural history involves the issuance of the notice and the subsequent writ petition filed by the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated April 17, 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 Contentions: The assessee argued that the notice under Section 148 was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, which, according to this Court's judgment in Shree Cement Limited, following Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., renders such a notice invalid. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the assessee was covered by this Court's judgment. However, it was stated that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been preferred by the Revenue in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, and notice had been 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. 7906/2023 Naveen Menaria S/o Onkar Lal Menaria, Aged About 40 Years, R/o 723 Unique Sanghi Apartments Mahaveer Nagar Durgapura Tonk Road Jaipur 302018 ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ito, Ward-6(2), Jpr, 2Nd Floor, 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 17th 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-7906/2023]

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 17th 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/59

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →