D.b. Civil Writ Petition v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Income Taxdepartment, Circle

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6508/2023 Au Small Finance Bank Limited, 19A Dhuleshwar Garden, AjmerRoad, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302001 Through Its AuthorizedRepresentative Mr. Manmohan Parnami, S/o Mr. Jugal KishoreParnami, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Q.no. 301, Gurunanakpura,Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur-302004. ----Petitioner Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Income TaxDepartment, Circle-1, Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building,Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur-302005, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Sharma Advocate with Mr. Saksham Pandey Advocate. Mr. Saksham Pandey Advocate. For Respondent(s): Mr. Sandeep Pathak Advocate withMr. Palash Gupta Advocate.Mr. Palash Gupta Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMAOrder 09/09/2025 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 29[th] March 2023under 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],has held that such a notice will be bad and not valid. 1DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported)22025 SCCOnLine Raj 338622025 SCCOnLine Raj 3386 3[2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) 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 29[th] March 2023 issued underSection 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed. 6.Petition disposed. 7.Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. 8.We are informed that after the petition was filed, anassessment order dated 28[th] March 2023 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. 9.Mr. Rajat Sharma’s statement that application to withdrawthe appeal will be filed within two weeks, is accepted. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ