AMARJIT SINGH S/O RAMESHWAR SINGH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/13563/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02067501202301 September 2025Bench: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 18, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), citing the precedent set 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). The Court granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The ratio decidendi is that a Section 148 notice issued by an unauthorized officer is void ab initio. The operative direction was to quash the notice and dispose of the petition, with liberty granted to the revenue.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Amarjit Singh, challenged a notice dated April 18, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent was the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Ajmer. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), rendering it invalid. The revenue, represented by Mr. Pathak, agreed that one ground was covered by a previous High Court judgment. The revenue also informed the court that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued by the Supreme Court. The revenue sought liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court interfered with the aforementioned judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated April 18, 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 bad in law and invalid? (Question of law turning on Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contentions: The notice under Section 148 is invalid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, relying on the High 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 Contentions: The revenue agreed that the ground was covered by the High Court's judgment. However, it stated that an SLP had been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment and notice had been issued. The revenue requested liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Apex Court interfered with the judgments 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. 13563/2023 Amarjit Singh S/o Rameshwar Singh, Aged About 51 Years, R/o 5, Asha Vihar, Opp Tagore Nagar Ajmer Road, Jaipur 302019, Rajasthan. ----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 18th 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-13563/2023] 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 18th 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/100

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →