PIYUSH PALIWAL S/O ARUN KUMAR PALIWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/8236/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02039173202301 September 2025Bench: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated April 17, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court relied on its previous decisions in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, which followed the Bombay High Court's ruling in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that such notices issued by JAOs instead of FAOs are invalid. The Court granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court interferes with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. The petition was disposed of, and any re-assessment order passed was also quashed and set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Piyush Paliwal, challenged a notice dated April 17, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent is the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kota. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), rendering it invalid. The respondent's counsel conceded that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the Court. The respondent also noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed against the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), and notice had been issued by the Apex Court.

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? Assessee's Contention: The notice is invalid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, relying on this Court's judgments in Shree Cement Limited (supra) and Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra), and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra). Revenue's Contention: The revenue acknowledged that the issue is covered by the cited judgments. However, it pointed out that an SLP has been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice has been issued by the Apex Court. The revenue sought liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision overturns the High Court 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. 8236/2023 Piyush Paliwal S/o Arun Kumar Paliwal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 1-B, 401, Suwalka Embraled Residency Bundi Road, Kunhari, Kota, Rajasthan-324008. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ito, Ward-2(2), Kota, Dainik Navjyoti Rawat Bhata Road, Kota, Rajasthan-324009. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajat Sharma, Mr. Shubhendra Singh & Mr. Saksham Pandey 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. Jhanwar 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-8236/2023] 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. Jhanwar 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/72

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →