Pinkcity Jewelhouse Private Limited, 76, Dhuleshwar Gardens,Jaipur v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Jaipur,Room

[2025:RJ-JP:33892-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12425/2024 Pinkcity Jewelhouse Private Limited, 76, Dhuleshwar Gardens,Jaipur 302001 Through Its Director Mrs. Kajal Goyal ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Jaipur,Room No 408, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, AmbedkarCircle, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Ranka with Mr. Rohan ChatterMr. Rohan ChatterFor Respondent: Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Sarvesh Jain &Mr. Meyhul MiittalMr. Sarvesh Jain &Mr. Meyhul Miittal HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 26/08/2025 Order 1.Mr. Siddharth Ranka, counsel for petitioner states that due toinadvertence, certain grounds have not been raised and moreimportantly, the ground that notice under Section 148 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued by theJurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless AssessingOfficer (FAO). 2.Mr. Ranka states that if the Court would insist, he is ready tofile an application for adding grounds or tender draft amendmentor as per law laid down, ready to even argue without the groundbeing specifically spelt out in writing. 3.Mr. Siddharth Bapna, counsel for respondent in fairnessstates that that would be a valid ground if the Court allowspetitioner to raise. 4.Since the law is clear inasmuch as this Court in a recentjudgment in the case of Shree Cement Limited Vs. AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax & Others[1], has held, relying ondecision of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd Vs. Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax, Circle 15(1)(2)[2], that if a notice under Section 148 of theAct is issued by the JAO and not FAO, the notice will be bad. 5.In view of settled position, we do not insist on petitionerformally amending the petition. 6.It is true that notice under Section 148 of the Act has beenissued by JAO and not FAO, therefore, that notice is bad and hasto be quashed and set aside. 7.In view of the above, we are not delving into the othergrounds raised in the petition. If the Hon’ble Apex Court interferesin the decision of High Court of Bombay in HexawareTechnologies Ltd. (supra), parties may rekindle all issues.Keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties, noticedated 29[th] March 2024 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act,impugned order dated 29[th] April 2024 passed under Section148A(d) of the Act and impugned notice dated 29[th] April 2024issued under Section 148 of the Act are quashed and set aside. 8.Petition allowed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J 1DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported)2[2024] 162 taxmann.com 255 (Bombay)2[2024] 162 taxmann.com 255 (Bombay)