Ashwani Gupta v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Jaipurhaving Its Address, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi, Lic Building,Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6076/2024 Ashwani Gupta S/o Shri Hari Narayan Agarwal, aged about 50years, R/o P.no. 13, Shubham Enclave, Civil Lines, Phatak, C-Scheme, Jaipur - 302001. ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, JaipurHaving Its Address, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi, Lic Building,Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Vijay Advocate. : 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 09/09/2025 Order 1.At the outset, Mr. Aditya Vijay states that the legal groundthat the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 isnot valid because it has been issued by Jurisdictional AssessingOfficer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), has notbeen taken. Counsel states in the Court that petition is yet to beadmitted and if the Court insists, petitioner will take out anapplication for adding grounds. 2.Mr. Siddharth Bapna states that since there was a group ofalmost 150 matters on the same ground and this Court has takena view that such a notice will be invalid, he will not insist onformal amendment in the petition. 3.Ground referred to is that the notice dated 26[th] March 2024under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issuedby a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not FacelessAssessing Officer (FAO) and this Court in the case of ShreeCement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax& Others[1] following Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income TaxOfficer & Another[2]and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs.Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2)[3], hasheld that such a notice will be bad and not valid. 4.At the same time, Mr. Siddharth Bapna states that inHexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Revenue has preferred aSpecial Leave Petition and notice has been issued. Counsel statesthat in view of the law as it stands today, Court may grant theprayer of petitioner but in case the Apex Court interferes withjudgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), ShardaDevi Chhajer (supra) or Shree Cement Limited (supra), thenRevenue should be given liberty to revive the notice issued underSection 148 of the Act. 5.Mr. Aditya Vijay states that in view of the above, for thepresent, petitioner will reserve his right to raise other grounds atan appropriate stage. 6.Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties,we quash and set aside notice dated 26[th] March 2024 issued underSection 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed. 7.Petition disposed. 1DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported)22025 SCCOnLine Raj 33863[2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)22025 SCCOnLine Raj 33863[2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) 8.Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. 9. We are informed that after the petition was filed, anassessment order dated 20[th] March 2025 has already been passed.Since we have held that the notice issued under Section 148 ofthe Act itself is not valid, the consequential assessment ordercannot be sustained. The same is also quashed and set aside. 10.Mr. Aditya Vijay’s statement that application to withdraw theappeal will be filed within two weeks, is accepted. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT/44