D.b. Civil Writ Petition v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, 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. 2999/2024Ram Babu Gupta Son Of Ram Kishore Khandelwal, Aged About60 Years, Having His Address At C-87, Sethi Colony, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, JaipurHaving Its Address, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi, Lic Building,Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s): Mr. Aditya VijayFor Respondent(s): Mr. Siddharth Bapna with For Respondent(s): Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Sarvesh Jain, Mr. Meyhul Mittal & Mr. Rahul Kumar Mr. Rahul Kumar HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 08/09/2025 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. Bapna states that this Court has taken a view that such anotice will be invalid, he will not insist on formal amendment inthe petition. 3.Ground referred to is that the notice dated 25[th] March 2022under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued by 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. Bapna states that in HexawareTechnologies Ltd. (supra), Revenue has preferred a SpecialLeave Petition and notice has been issued. Counsel states that inview of the law as it stands today, Court may grant the prayer ofpetitioner but in case the Apex Court interferes with judgment inHexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer(supra) or Shree Cement Limited (supra), then Revenue shouldbe given liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 ofthe 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 25[th] March 2022 issued underSection 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed. 7.Petition disposed. 8.Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also standdisposed. 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) 9.Since we have held that the notice issued under Section 148of the Act itself is not valid, the consequential assessment order18[th] March 2024 cannot be sustained. The same is also quashedand set aside. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N.GANDHI/RAJAT/17