PRATHVI SINGH CHOUHAN S/O HARI SINGH CHOUHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWER

PDF · subscribers
CW/13545/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02068965202301 September 2025Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner's contention that the notice issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) was invalid, citing precedents from Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the Revenue's request for liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to alter the position in the aforementioned cases. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Prathvi Singh Chouhan, challenged a notice dated April 13, 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), rendering it invalid. The respondent, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Beawar, acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court. The respondent also noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued by the Apex Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is invalid, turning on Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contentions: The notice under Section 148 was issued by a JAO and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), making it bad and not valid. This contention is supported by the High Court's judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a judgment of the Court. While acknowledging the current legal position, the Revenue submitted that if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited, the Revenue should be granted liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148.

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. 13545/2023 Prathvi Singh Chouhan S/o Hari Singh Chouhan, Aged About 58 Years, R/o House No 8, Nb Nagar, Bedwas Udaipur, Rajasthan, India. ----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. Sandeep Pathak with Ms. Jaya 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. 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 13th 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-13545/2023] 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. 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 13th 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/95

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →