Kamal Singh v. Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Yaduvanshi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6600/2023 Kamal Singh S/o Shri Dalip Singh, Aged About 56 Years,Resident Of A-44, Dadudayal Nagar, Mansarovar Extension,Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Through Income Tax Officer, ItoWard 5(1), Jaipur Having An Office New Central RevenueBuilding, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302005 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s)For Respondent(s)For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Yaduvanshi : Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Ms. Jaya P. Pathak & Mr. Palash Gupta HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 01/09/2025 Order 1.At the outset, Mr. Yaduvanshi 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 Offider (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. Pathak states that since there is a group of almost 150matters today on the same ground and this Court has taken aview that such a notice will be invalid, he will not insist on formalamendment in the petition. 3.Ground referred to is that the notice dated 18[th] April 2023under 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 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. Pathak 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. Kasliwal states that in view of the above, for the present,petitioner will reserve his right to raise other grounds at anappropriate stage. 6.Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties,we quash and set aside notice dated 18[th] April 2023 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.In case, if any re-assessment order is passed, the same will also stand quashed and set aside. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N.GANDHI/RAJAT/33