Rajesh Daga Son Of Shri Shanti Lal Daga v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipurhaving Its Address At 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building,Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3288/2025 Rajesh Daga Son Of Shri Shanti Lal Daga, Aged About 53 Years,Resident Of 304 Royal Ensine, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, JaipurHaving Its Address At 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building,Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondent HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMAOrder 08/09/2025 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 HexawareTechnologies 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 19[th] March 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act isquashed and set aside. 8.Petition allowed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N.GANDHI/RAJAT/23 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)