Satish Kumar v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle
High Court
01 Sep 2025 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · jaipur
Parties
Satish Kumar v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle
Date of order
01 Sep 2025
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Satish Kumar v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle, the High Court (2025) decided the matter.
Decision: 8.In case, if any re-assessment order is passed, the same willalso stand quashed and set aside.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16966/2024
Satish Kumar S/o Late Shri Lokchand Gupta, Aged About 47Years, R/o 304, 2Nd Floor, Plot No. 8-9, Shiv Villa Residency,Ganesh Nagar, Swage Farm, Sodala, Rajasthan, Pin Code-302019.
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1, Alwar C RBuilding, Moti Doongri Road, Alwar, Rajasthan, 301001.
----Respondent
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMAOrder
01/09/2025
1.Mr. Pathak, who appears on advance copy, agrees withMr. Jhanwar that one of the grounds raised certainly is covered bya judgment of this Court.
2.Ground referred to is that the notice dated 13[th ]April 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 338622025 SCCOnLine Raj 3386
3[2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)
3.At the same time, Mr. Pathak 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. Jhanwar states that in view of the above, for the present,petitioner will reserve his right to raise other grounds at anappropriate stage.
5.Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties,we quash and set aside notice dated 13[th ]April 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/174
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.