RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA S/O GOPAL CHANDRA SHARMA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/13559/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02067513202301 September 2025Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 19, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision was based on the established position of law as laid down in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that notices issued by JAOs instead of FAOs are invalid. The Court granted the revenue's request for liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. 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. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the liberty granted to the revenue implies a potential future challenge to the current order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ramesh Chandra Sharma, challenged a notice dated April 19, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Ajmer. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent revenue, represented by Mr. Sandeep Pathak, acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by this Court's judgment. The revenue also informed the court that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed and notice issued in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), a case relied upon by the petitioner. The revenue sought 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.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice 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 turning on Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The notice dated April 19, 2023, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. This contention is supported by the judgments of this Court in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others and Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another, as well as the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). Revenue's Contention: The revenue agreed that the ground was covered by the cited judgments. However, they stated that an SLP had been filed in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and notice issued. The revenue requested liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Apex Court were to overturn the decisions 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

[2025:RJ-JP:35135-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13559/2023 Ramesh Chandra Sharma S/o Gopal Chandra Sharma, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Keshav Sampada, 22, Someshwar Nagar, Near Raj Mahal Hotel, Sendra Road, Beawar, Rajasthan, India (305901). ----Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner/assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Ajmer, Cr Building, Opp Session Court, Jaipur Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan, 305001. ----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 19th 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-13559/2023] 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 19th 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/98

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →