PRAHLAD SINGH RATHORE S/O ROOP SINGH RATHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWER

PDF · subscribers
CW/13531/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02068162202301 September 2025Bench: 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 15, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged that the ground raised by the petitioner regarding the notice being issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) was covered by its own previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer for the present. However, in light of the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, the Revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Court also stated that any re-assessment 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, Prahlad Singh Rathore, challenged a notice dated April 15, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Beawar, appeared on advance copy. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, considered the submissions. The procedural history involves the issuance of the Section 148 notice and the subsequent writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging its validity.

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 valid? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 is invalid because it was issued by a JAO, not an FAO. They relied on this Court's judgment in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). Revenue's Contention: The respondent agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by this Court's judgment. However, the Revenue noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been preferred against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued. The Revenue requested liberty to revive the notice under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JP:35135-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13531/2023 Prahlad Singh Rathore S/o Roop Singh Rathore, Aged About 63 Years, R/o General Manager Mines Shree Cement Limited Andheri Deori Beawar 305901. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Beawer, Court Campus, Ajmer Road Beawar, Beawar, Rajasthan 305901 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Gargieya with Mr. Devang Gargieya, Mr. Hemang Gargieya & Mr. Tarak Ahuja 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. Shantanu Sharma, who appears on advance copy, agrees with Mr. Mahendra Gargieya 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 Jurisdictional 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-13531/2023] 3. At the same time, Mr. Shantanu 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. Mahendra Gargieya 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/90

More judgments on Section 148

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →