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

PDF · subscribers
CW/1448/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02007088202409 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 agreed with the assessee's contention 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, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court also quashed and set aside the consequential assessment order dated March 9, 2024, as it was based on an invalid notice. The revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The parties' rights and contentions were kept open, and the petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage.

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. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), rendering it invalid. The respondents, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, appeared. The High Court noted that an assessment order dated March 9, 2024, had been passed subsequent to the filing of the petition. The core of the dispute revolved around the validity of the Section 148 notice.

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 valid? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notice dated March 26, 2023, under Section 148 was invalid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. The assessee relied on the High Court's judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding such notices to be bad in law. Revenue's Contention: The revenue agreed that one of the grounds raised was covered by the High Court's judgment. However, the revenue stated that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd., and notice had been issued by the Apex Court. The revenue requested liberty to revive the 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:36352-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1448/2024 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 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Sharma Advocate with Mr. Saksham Pandey Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna Advocate with Mr. Sarvesh Jain Advocate & Mr. Meyhul Mittal Advocate. 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 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

[2025:RJ-JP:36352-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-1448/2024] & 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. 8. We are informed that after the petition was filed, an assessment order dated 09th March 2024 has already been passed. Since we have held that the notice issued under Section 148 of 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:36352-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-1448/2024] the Act itself is not valid, the consequential assessment order cannot be sustained. The same is also quashed and set aside. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT/43

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →