PINKCITY JEWELHOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/12425/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02064045202426 August 2025Bench: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is bad in law and must be quashed and set aside. This decision was based on the settled position of law as per the High Court's own recent judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which in turn relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court found that the notice dated 29th March 2024 issued under Section 148A(b), the impugned order dated 29th April 2024 passed under Section 148A(d), and the impugned notice dated 29th April 2024 issued under Section 148 were all bad due to being issued by the JAO. Consequently, these were quashed and set aside. The Court did not delve into other grounds raised in the petition, leaving open the possibility for parties to rekindle issues if the Apex Court interferes with the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pinkcity Jewelhouse Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging notices and an order issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Siddharth Ranka, sought to raise an additional ground that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, did not object to this ground being raised. The Court noted that this was a valid ground based on its own prior judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is bad in law? (Question of law, turning on Section 148 of the Act). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued by the JAO, not the FAO, and this invalidates the notice. They were prepared to argue this ground, even if not formally amended in the petition. Revenue's Contentions: The respondent conceded that if the Court allowed the petitioner to raise the ground, it would be a valid argument. The revenue did not present any arguments against this specific point.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JP:33892-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12425/2024 Pinkcity Jewelhouse Private Limited, 76, Dhuleshwar Gardens, Jaipur 302001 Through Its Director Mrs. Kajal Goyal ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Jaipur, Room No 408, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Ranka with Mr. Rohan Chatter For Respondent : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Sarvesh Jain & Mr. Meyhul Miittal HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 26/08/2025 1. Mr. Siddharth Ranka, counsel for petitioner states that due to inadvertence, certain grounds have not been raised and more importantly, the ground that notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). 2. Mr. Ranka states that if the Court would insist, he is ready to file an application for adding grounds or tender draft amendment or as per law laid down, ready to even argue without the ground being specifically spelt out in writing.

[2025:RJ-JP:33892-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-12425/2024] 3. Mr. Siddharth Bapna, counsel for respondent in fairness states that that would be a valid ground if the Court allows petitioner to raise. 4. Since the law is clear inasmuch as this Court in a recent judgment in the case of Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Others1, has held, relying on decision of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(1)(2)2, that if a notice under Section 148 of the Act is issued by the JAO and not FAO, the notice will be bad. 5. In view of settled position, we do not insist on petitioner formally amending the petition. 6. It is true that notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued by JAO and not FAO, therefore, that notice is bad and has to be quashed and set aside. 7. In view of the above, we are not delving into the other grounds raised in the petition. If the Hon’ble Apex Court interferes in the decision of High Court of Bombay in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), parties may rekindle all issues. Keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties, notice dated 29th March 2024 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, impugned order dated 29th April 2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and impugned notice dated 29th April 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act are quashed and set aside. 8. Petition allowed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ KAMLESH KUMAR-RAHUL/89 1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) 2 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 255 (Bombay)

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →