Back Office It Solutions Private Limited, F-220-225, Epip It Park,Sitapura, Jaipur v. Mr. Saksham Pandey Advocate

[2025:RJ-JP:36112-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3375/2023 Back Office It Solutions Private Limited, F-220-225, Epip It Park,Sitapura, Jaipur 302022, Rajasthan Through Its AuthorisedRepresentative Samir Gandhi, S/o Late C.v. Gandhi, Aged About56 Years, R/o E29A, Sumitra Path, Bani Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, CentralCircle 7 Jaipur, Sidhnath Bhawan, Rajas, Jyoti Nagar Scheme, LalKothi 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. Mr. Palash Gupta Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMAJudgment 08/09/2025 1.Mr. Sandeep Pathak, who appears on advance copy, agreeswith Mr. Rajat Sharma that one of the grounds raised certainly iscovered by a judgment of this Court. 2.Ground referred to is that the notice dated 27[th] July 2022 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issuedby a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not FacelessAssessing Offider (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 Tax Officer & Another[2]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 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), Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra) or Shree Cement Limited (supra), thenRevenue should be given liberty to revive the notice issued underSection 148 of the Act. 4.Mr. Rajat Sharma states that in view of the above, for thepresent, petitioner will reserve its right to raise other grounds atan appropriate stage. 5.Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties,we quash and set aside notice dated 27[th] July 2022 issued underSection 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.6.Petition disposed. 7.Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also standdisposed. 8.In case, if any re-assessment order is passed, the same willalso stand quashed and set aside. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT-SEEMA/53 22025 SCCOnLine Raj 33863[2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)3[2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)