Govind Prakash Agarwal v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2Room

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1882/2024 Govind Prakash Agarwal S/o Shri Ram Gopal Sarraf, Aged About51 Years, R/o Brij Villa, D-70, Residency Road, C-Scheme Jaipur,Rajasthan-302005 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2Room No. 410, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building,Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur Rajasthan-302005Room No. 410, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building,Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur Rajasthan-302005 2.Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Acit Central Circle-2, Room No. 410, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building,Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302005.2, Room No. 410, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building,Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302005.3.Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Finance,Government of India, North Block, New Delhi-110001Government of India, North Block, New Delhi-110001 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Sharma Advocate with Mr. Saksham Pandey Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Siddharth Bapna Advocate with No.1 & 2Mr. Sarvesh Jain Advocate &Mr. Meyhul Mittal Advocate. No.1 & 2Mr. Sarvesh Jain Advocate &Mr. Meyhul Mittal Advocate. For Respondent No.3:Mr. Devesh Yadav Advocate with Mr. Yatharth Asopa Advocate &Mr. Yatharth Asopa Advocate & Mr. Chinmay Surolia Advocate for Mr. R.D. Rastogi, ASGMr. R.D. Rastogi, ASG HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMAOrder 09/09/2025 1.Mr. Siddharth Bapna, 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 30[th] March 2023under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issuedby a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing 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. 3.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. 4.Mr. Rajat Sharma states that in view of the above, for thepresent, petitioner will reserve his 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 30[th] March 2023 issued underSection 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.6.Petition disposed. 7.Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also standdisposed. 8.Since we have held that the notice issued under Section 148of the Act itself is not valid, the consequential assessment order 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) dated 09[th] March 2024 cannot be sustained. The same is also quashed and set aside. 9.Mr. Rajat Sharma’s statement that application to withdraw the appeal will be filed within two weeks, is accepted. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT/63