BACK OFFICE IT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/3376/2023HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JP:36122-DB08 September 2025Bench: K.R. SHRIRAM, MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated July 25, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's decision was based on the established precedent in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that 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. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All other rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Back Office It Solutions Private Limited, challenged a notice dated July 25, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent was the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 7 Jaipur. The core of the dispute revolved around the validity of the notice. 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 revenue, while agreeing that a ground was covered by a High Court judgment, sought liberty to revive the notice if higher courts overturned the precedent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated July 25, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid if issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee contended that such a notice is bad in law and invalid, relying on the High Court's judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer. Revenue's Contention: The revenue agreed that the issue was covered by a High Court judgment. However, they stated that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed in the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, and notice had been issued. The revenue requested liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Apex Court interfered 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:36122-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3376/2023 Back Office It Solutions Private Limited, F-220-225, Epip It Park, Sitapura, Jaipur 302022, Rajasthan Through Its Authorised Representative Samir Gandhi, S/o Late C.v. Gandhi, Aged About 56 Years, R/o E29A, Sumitra Path, Bani Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 7 Jaipur, Sidhnath Bhawan, Rajas, Jyoti Nagar Scheme, Lal Kothi Scheme, Behind New Vidhan Sabha, Janpath, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302015 Through Commissioner ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Sharma Advocate with Mr. Saksham Pandey Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak Advocate with Ms. Jaya P. Pathak Advocate & Mr. Palash Gupta Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Judgment 08/09/2025 1. Mr. Sandeep Pathak, 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 25th July 2022 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 1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) (Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 01:11:18 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:25:36 AM)

[2025:RJ-JP:36122-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-3376/2023] 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. Sandeep Pathak 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 its 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 25th July 2022 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 SANJAY KUMAWAT-SEEMA/54 2 2025 SCCOnLine Raj 3386 3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 01:11:18 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:25:36 AM)

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →