ANIL MOGRA S/O SOHAL LAL MOGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/16005/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02081840202301 September 2025Bench: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad and not valid because it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). This finding is based on the Court's own previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court quashed and set aside the notice. However, acknowledging the pendency of an SLP before the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision impacts the validity of the notices in the cited cases. The Court also stated that if any re-assessment order is passed, it will also stand quashed and set aside. All other rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anil Mogra, challenged a notice dated April 13, 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-1, Beawar, did not dispute this fact. The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, was considering this writ petition. The procedural history involves the issuance of the notice and the subsequent challenge by the petitioner.

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 bad in law and invalid? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice dated April 13, 2023, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued by a JAO, not an FAO, and therefore, it is bad and not valid. The petitioner relied on the judgments of this Court in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others and Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another, as well as the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). Revenue's Contentions: The respondent agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner is covered by a judgment of this Court. The respondent acknowledged that a Special Leave Petition has been preferred by the Revenue against the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and notice has been issued. The respondent requested liberty to revive the notice under Section 148 if the Apex Court interferes 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:35135-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16005/2023 Anil Mogra S/o Sohal Lal Mogra, Aged About 46 Years, R/o House No. 19, Bohra Ganesh Colony, Near Dhul Kot, Udaipur-313001, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Beawer, Court Campus, Ajmer Road, Beawar, Beawar, Rajasthan, 305901 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Gargieya with Mr. Devang Gargieya, Mr. Hemang Gargieya & Mr. Tarak Ahuja For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shantanu Sharma with Mr. Parth Vashishtha & Mr. Aditya Doda HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 01/09/2025 1. Mr. Sharma, 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 13th 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-16005/2023] 3. At the same time, Mr. Sharma 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 13th 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/140

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →