[2025:RJ-JP:36356-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6076/2024 Ashwani Gupta S/o Shri Hari Narayan Agarwal, aged about 50 years, R/o P.no. 13, Shubham Enclave, Civil Lines, Phatak, C- Scheme, Jaipur - 302001. ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Jaipur Having Its Address, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Vijay Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna Advocate with Mr. Sarvesh Jain Advocate & Mr. Meyhul Mittal Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 09/09/2025 1. At the outset, Mr. Aditya Vijay states that the legal ground that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not valid because it has been issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), has not been taken. Counsel states in the Court that petition is yet to be admitted and if the Court insists, petitioner will take out an application for adding grounds. 2. Mr. Siddharth Bapna states that since there was a group of almost 150 matters on the same ground and this Court has taken a view that such a notice will be invalid, he will not insist on formal amendment in the petition. [2025:RJ-JP:36356-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-6076/2024] 3. Ground referred to is that the notice dated 26th March 2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) and this Court in the case of Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others1 following Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another2 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. 4. At the same time, Mr. Siddharth Bapna states that in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Revenue has preferred a Special Leave Petition and notice has been issued. Counsel states that in view of the law as it stands today, Court may grant the prayer of petitioner but in case the Apex Court interferes with judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra) or Shree Cement Limited (supra), then Revenue should be given liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. 5. Mr. Aditya Vijay states that in view of the above, for the present, petitioner will reserve his right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. 6. Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 26th March 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed. 7. Petition disposed. 1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) 2 2025 SCCOnLine Raj 3386 3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) [2025:RJ-JP:36356-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-6076/2024] 8. Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. 9. We are informed that after the petition was filed, an assessment order dated 20th March 2025 has already been passed. Since we have held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act itself is not valid, the consequential assessment order cannot be sustained. The same is also quashed and set aside. 10. Mr. Aditya Vijay’s statement that application to withdraw the appeal will be filed within two weeks, is accepted. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT/44