[2025:RJ-JP:33892-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12425/2024 Pinkcity Jewelhouse Private Limited, 76, Dhuleshwar Gardens, Jaipur 302001 Through Its Director Mrs. Kajal Goyal ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Jaipur, Room No 408, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Ranka with Mr. Rohan Chatter For Respondent : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Sarvesh Jain & Mr. Meyhul Miittal HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 26/08/2025 1. Mr. Siddharth Ranka, counsel for petitioner states that due to inadvertence, certain grounds have not been raised and more importantly, the ground that notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). 2. Mr. Ranka states that if the Court would insist, he is ready to file an application for adding grounds or tender draft amendment or as per law laid down, ready to even argue without the ground being specifically spelt out in writing. [2025:RJ-JP:33892-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-12425/2024] 3. Mr. Siddharth Bapna, counsel for respondent in fairness states that that would be a valid ground if the Court allows petitioner to raise. 4. Since the law is clear inasmuch as this Court in a recent judgment in the case of Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Others1, has held, relying on decision of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(1)(2)2, that if a notice under Section 148 of the Act is issued by the JAO and not FAO, the notice will be bad. 5. In view of settled position, we do not insist on petitioner formally amending the petition. 6. It is true that notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued by JAO and not FAO, therefore, that notice is bad and has to be quashed and set aside. 7. In view of the above, we are not delving into the other grounds raised in the petition. If the Hon’ble Apex Court interferes in the decision of High Court of Bombay in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), parties may rekindle all issues. Keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties, notice dated 29th March 2024 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, impugned order dated 29th April 2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and impugned notice dated 29th April 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act are quashed and set aside. 8. Petition allowed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ KAMLESH KUMAR-RAHUL/89 1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) 2 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 255 (Bombay)