VIKAS AGARWAL S/O SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, NEEM KA THANA

PDF · subscribers
CW/14229/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02068912202301 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 17, 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 JAO instead of an FAO was covered by its own judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court noted the Revenue's submission that an SLP was pending against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment and granted the petitioner's prayer for quashing the notice, while also granting liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the precedents. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to this notice would also stand quashed and set aside. The Court kept open all rights and contentions of the parties.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vikas Agarwal, challenged a notice dated April 17, 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, Neem Ka Thana, appeared on advance copy. The High Court acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by its previous judgments. The respondent agreed with this assessment but noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed against one of the relied-upon judgments, Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The respondent sought liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court interfered with the existing precedents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated April 17, 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) Assessee's Contention: The notice under Section 148 is invalid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, relying on the High Court's judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's Contention: While agreeing that the notice is covered by the cited judgments, the Revenue noted that an SLP has been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment. The Revenue requested liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court overturns the decisions in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Revenue did not dispute the invalidity of the notice based on the current legal position.

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. 14229/2023 Vikas Agarwal S/o Suresh Kumar Agarwal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Vikas Agarwal, Solawala Bhawan, Agarsen Colony, Ward No- 24, Pushp Nagar Shrimadhopur - 332715. Dist. Sikar, Rajasthan, India. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer Ward, Neem Ka Thana, Neemka Thana, Rajasthan, Near Santoshi Mata Mandir, Chhawani Road, Khetri Mode, Godawas Road, Dist. Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan, 332713 ----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 17th 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-14229/2023] 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 17th 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/112

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →