Rajeev Jangir v. Order

[2025:RJ-JP:36377-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7462/2023 Rajeev Jangir S/o Ratan Lal Jangir, Aged About 40 Years,Resident Of 402, A27B, Rajputana Tower, Shanti Path, TilakNagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Through Income Tax Officer, ItoWard 4(2), Jaipur Having An Office At Rom No. 208, 2Nd Floor,New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur,Rajasthan, 302005 ----Respondent HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 09/09/2025 Order 1.At the outset, Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Yaduvanshi states thatthe legal ground that the notice under Section 148 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 is not valid because it has been issued byJurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless AssessingOfficer (FAO), has not been taken. Counsel states in the Court thatpetition is yet to be admitted and if the Court insists, petitionerwill take out an application for adding grounds. 2.Mr. Sandeep Pathak states that since there was a group ofalmost 150 matters on the same ground and this Court has takena view that such a notice will be invalid, he will not insist onformal amendment 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 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], 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. Abhimanyu Singh Yaduvanshi states that in view of theabove, for the present, petitioner will reserve his right to raiseother grounds at an appropriate 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 willalso stand quashed and set aside. 10.Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Yaduvanshi’s statement that applicationto withdraw the appeal will be filed within two weeks, is accepted. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT/51