KAMAL KHANDELWAL (AY 2015-16) S/O SHRI AMBA PRASAD KHANDELWAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/10587/2025HC RajasthanRJHC02059236202526 August 2025Bench: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated 20.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged the clarity of the law regarding notices issued by the JAO instead of the FAO, as per previous judgments. While the petitioner sought to amend the petition to include this ground, the Revenue conceded that the law was clear. The Court, in fairness, kept open all rights and contentions of the parties. Crucially, the Revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Court also clarified that the petitioner did not press other grounds raised in the petition. Therefore, the petition was disposed of with the aforementioned liberty granted to the Revenue.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kamal Khandelwal, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner's counsel stated that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which, according to previous judgments of the High Court, would render the notice invalid. The counsel sought permission to amend the petition to include this ground. The Revenue's counsel acknowledged the clarity of the law on this point and stated that while other petitions by the same petitioner were dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy, the JAO/FAO issue was not argued in those cases. The Revenue also informed the court that the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., relied upon by the petitioner, has been challenged before the Apex Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is invalid and liable to be quashed, as per the High Court's previous rulings in Shree Cement Limited, Hexaware Technologies Ltd., and Sharda Devi Chhajer? Assessee's Contention: The notice issued by the JAO is bad and not valid, citing the High Court's decisions in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), and Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another. Revenue's Contention: The law is clear on the invalidity of such a notice. However, the Revenue noted that the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment has been challenged before the Apex Court, and if the Apex Court interferes with these judgments, the Revenue should be given liberty to revive the notice. The Revenue also mentioned that two other petitions by the same petitioner were dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy, though the JAO/FAO issue was not argued in those instances.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JP:33795-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10587/2025 Kamal Khandelwal (Ay 2015-16) S/o Shri Amba Prasad Khandelwal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o D-86, Pawan Path, Opposite Gurudwara, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan -302021. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Office Of Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 4, Room No. 416, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi 2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302005. 2. Director General Of Income Tax (Investigation), 2Nd Floor, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302005. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vedant Agrawal with Mr. Shreshth Vardhan For Respondents : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Meyhul Mittal & Mr. Sarvesh Jain HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 26/08/2025 1. Counsel for petitioner states that in this case also, the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act of 1961’) was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). Counsel submitted that therefore, as held by this Court in the case of Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others1 following Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2)2 and Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another3, the 1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) 2 [2024] 162 Taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) 3 2025 SCCOnLine Raj 3386

[2025:RJ-JP:33795-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-10587/2025] notice would be bad and not valid. Counsel says in fairness that this ground has not been taken in the petition and seeks permission to amend the grounds. 2. Mr. Siddharth Bapna in fairness as an officer of the Court states that since the law is very clear, the Court need not insist on the formal amendment of the petition, but at the same time, he also submitted that two other petitions by same petitioner came to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy, but again in fairness states that the issue of JAO and FAO was not argued before the Bench. He also states that Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), which was followed in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra) and Shree Cement Limited (supra), has been challenged before the Apex Court and notice has been issued. He submits that 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. 3. Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 20.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed. 4. In view of above, we also clarify that petitioner did not press other grounds. 5. Petition disposed. 6. Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N.GANDHI/RAJAT/11

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →