Mohammed Shakil v. Income Tax Officer, Ward Tonk, Malpura Gate, Kala Baba,Tonk, Rajasthan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14431/2022 Mohammed Shakil S/o Sh. Mohammed Hanif, Aged About 53Years, R/o 04, Purani Tonk Pathano Ka Chock, Tonk 304021,Rajasthan, India. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward Tonk, Malpura Gate, Kala Baba,Tonk, Rajasthan - 304001.Tonk, Rajasthan - 304001. 2. Union Of India, Through Finance Secretary, Ministry OfFinance (Department Of Revenue), Central Board OfDirect Taxes, North Block, New Delhi.Finance (Department Of Revenue), Central Board OfDirect Taxes, North Block, New Delhi. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Vijay Advocate on behalf ofMr. Jaideep Malik Advocate. Mr. Jaideep Malik Advocate. For Respondents: Mr. Sandeep Pathak Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 03/09/2025 Judgment 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 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. Sandeep Pathak states that since 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 25[th] July 2022under 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. 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), ShardaDevi Chhajer (supra) or Shree Cement Limited (supra), thenRevenue should be given liberty to revive the notice issued underSection 148 of the 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] July 2022 issued underSection 148 of the Act with liberty, as prayed. 7.In case, if any, re-assessment order is passed, the same willalso stand quashed and set aside. 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.Petition disposed. 9.Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT-Seema/20