Subhash Parwal v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-4 Jaipurhaving Its Address At Room

[2025:RJ-JP:35875-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3933/2024 Subhash Parwal S/o Jagdish Prasad Parwal, Aged About 67Years, Having His Address At M-69 Mahesh Colony Tonk PhatakJaipur 302015 ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-4 JaipurHaving Its Address At Room No. 416, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi, LicBuilding, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner For Respondent : Mr. Siddharth Ranka with Mr. Rohan Chatter Mr. Rohan Chatter : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Sarvesh Jain, Mr. Meyhul Mittal & Mr. Rahul KumarMr. Sarvesh Jain, Mr. Meyhul Mittal & Mr. Rahul Kumar HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 08/09/2025 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 including the ground that the noticehas been issued without DIN and hence, not valid. If the Hon’bleApex Court interferes in the decision of High Court of Bombay inHexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), parties may rekindle allissues. Keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties,notice dated 29[th] March 2023 issued under Section 148 of the Actis quashed and set aside. 8.Petition allowed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N.GANDHI/RAJAT/14 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)