VISHNU PRAKASH GOYAL S/O SHRI RAM GOPAL SARRAF vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/1447/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02007089202409 September 2025Bench: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 26, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court followed its previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that such notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are invalid. The Court granted the Revenue the liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. Consequently, the assessment order dated March 5, 2024, which was consequential to the invalid notice, was also quashed and set aside. The Court noted that the petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage and kept open all rights and contentions of the parties. The petition was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vishnu Prakash Goyal, challenged a notice dated March 26, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a consequential assessment order dated March 5, 2024. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The Revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court. The Revenue also informed the Court that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed against the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and notice had been issued.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated March 26, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is valid, or if it must be issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? (Question of law, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The notice is bad and not valid as it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. This contention is supported by the High Court's judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a judgment of the Court. However, they stated that an SLP had been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued. They requested liberty to revive the notice under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JP:36403-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1447/2024 Vishnu Prakash Goyal S/o Shri Ram Gopal Sarraf, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Brij Villa, D-70, Residency Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Room No. 410, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Acit Central Circle- 2, Room No. 410, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005 3. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, North Block, New Delhi.-110001 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Sharma Advocate with Mr. Saksham Pandey Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2 For Respondent No.3 : : Mr. Siddharth Bapna Advocate with Mr. Sarvesh Jain Advocate & Mr. Meyhul Mittal Advocate. Mr. Devesh Yadav Advocate with Mr. Yatharth Asopa Advocate & Mr. Chinmay Surolia Advocate for Mr. R.D. Rastogi, ASG HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 09/09/2025 1. Mr. Siddharth Bapna, who appears on advance copy, agrees with Mr. Rajat Sharma that one of the grounds raised certainly is covered by a judgment of this Court. 2. Ground referred to is that the notice dated 26th March 2023 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued

[2025:RJ-JP:36403-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-1447/2024] by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (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. 3. At the same time, Mr. Siddharth Bapna 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. Rajat Sharma 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 26th March 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. 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:36403-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-1447/2024] 8. Since we have held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act itself is not valid, the consequential assessment order dated 05th March 2024 cannot be sustained. The same is also quashed and set aside. 9. Mr. Rajat Sharma’s statement that application to withdraw the appeal will be filed within two weeks, is accepted. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT/58

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →