[2025:RJ-JP:36377-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7462/2023 Rajeev Jangir S/o Ratan Lal Jangir, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of 402, A27B, Rajputana Tower, Shanti Path, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Through Income Tax Officer, Ito Ward 4(2), Jaipur Having An Office At Rom No. 208, 2Nd Floor, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302005 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Yaduvanshi Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak Advocate with Mr. Palash Gupta 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. Abhimanyu Singh Yaduvanshi 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. Sandeep Pathak 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:36377-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-7462/2023] 3. Ground referred to is that the notice dated 18th April 2023 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. Sandeep Pathak 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. Abhimanyu Singh Yaduvanshi 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 18th April 2023 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:36377-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-7462/2023] 8. Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. 9. In case, if any re-assessment order is passed, the same will also stand quashed and set aside. 10. Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Yaduvanshi’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/51