Ram Babu Agarwal v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Roomno.410, 4[Th] Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle,Jaipur, Rajasthan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 730/2024 Ram Babu Agarwal S/o Sh. Brij Mohan Agarwal, aged about 65 years,R/o R-13, Yudishthar Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302001, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, RoomNo.410, 4[th] floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, LIC Building, Ambedkar Circle,Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, ACIT Central Circle-2, RoomNo.410, 4[th] Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, LIC Building, Ambedkar Circle,Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Sharma with Mr. Saksham PandeyMr. Saksham Pandey For Respondent(s): Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Sarvesh Jain, Mr. Meyhul Mittal & Mr. Rahul Kumar Mr. Rahul Kumar HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMAOrder 08/09/2025 1.Mr. Bapna, who appears on advance copy, agrees withMr. Rajat Sharma that one of the grounds raised certainly iscovered by a judgment of this Court. 2.Ground referred to is that the notice dated 26[th] March 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],has held that such a notice will be bad and not valid. 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) 3.At the same time, Mr. Bapna 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. 4.Mr. Rajat Sharma states that in view of the above, for thepresent, petitioner will reserve his right to raise other grounds atan appropriate stage. 5.Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties,we quash and set aside notice dated 26[th] March 2023 issued underSection 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed. 6.Petition disposed. 7.Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. 8.In case, if any re-assessment order is passed, the same willalso stand quashed and set aside. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N.GANDHI/RAJAT/16