RAJAN JHIRIWAL S/O SHRI KAMAL KUMAR JHIRIWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/14364/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02076027202408 September 2025Bench: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is bad in law and must be quashed and set aside. The Court relied on its own recent judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which in turn relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court found the position of law to be clear on this point. Consequently, the notice dated 14th March 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Act, was quashed and set aside. The Court did not delve into other grounds raised in the petition, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties, and stating that issues could be revisited if the Supreme Court interfered with the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajan Jhiriwal, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Siddharth Ranka, informed the Court that due to inadvertence, a crucial ground was not raised: that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent's counsel, Mr. Siddharth Bapna, conceded that this would be a valid ground if permitted. The Court noted that the law on this matter was clear, citing a previous judgment of the same Court in Shree Cement Limited, which relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is invalid? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued, through counsel, that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the JAO and not the FAO, rendering it bad in law. This ground was initially not explicitly raised due to inadvertence but was brought to the Court's attention. Revenue's Contention: The respondent's counsel conceded that if the Court allowed the petitioner to raise this ground, it would be a valid argument.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JP:35882-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14364/2024 Rajan Jhiriwal S/o Shri Kamal Kumar Jhiriwal, Aged About 48 Years, R/o 262, Scheme No.3, Basant Vihar, Alwar. ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Alwar Having Its Address At New Admin Bsnl Building Opp Cr Building Moti Dungri Circle Alwar ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Ranka with Mr. Rohan Chatter For Respondent : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Sarvesh Jain, Mr. Meyhul Mittal & Mr. Rahul Kumar HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 08/09/2025 1. Mr. Siddharth Ranka, counsel for petitioner states that due to inadvertence, certain grounds have not been raised and more importantly, the ground that notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). 2. Mr. Ranka states that if the Court would insist, he is ready to file an application for adding grounds or tender draft amendment or as per law laid down, ready to even argue without the ground being specifically spelt out in writing. 3. Mr. Siddharth Bapna, counsel for respondent in fairness states that, that would be a valid ground if the Court allows petitioner to raise.

[2025:RJ-JP:35882-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-14364/2024] 4. Since the law is clear inasmuch as this Court in a recent judgment in the case of Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Others1, has held, relying on decision of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(1)(2)2, that if a notice under Section 148 of the Act is issued by the JAO and not FAO, the notice will be bad. 5. In view of settled position, we do not insist on petitioner formally amending the petition. 6. It is true that notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued by JAO and not FAO, therefore, that notice is bad and has to be quashed and set aside. 7. In view of the above, we are not delving into the other grounds raised in the petition. If the Hon’ble Apex Court interferes in the decision of High Court of Bombay in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), parties may rekindle all issues. Keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties, notice dated 14th March 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act is quashed and set aside. 8. Petition allowed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N.GANDHI/RAJAT/20 1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) 2 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 255 (Bombay)

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →