[2025:RJ-JP:35247-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14431/2022 Mohammed Shakil S/o Sh. Mohammed Hanif, Aged About 53 Years, R/o 04, Purani Tonk Pathano Ka Chock, Tonk 304021, Rajasthan, India. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward Tonk, Malpura Gate, Kala Baba, Tonk, Rajasthan - 304001. 2. Union Of India, Through Finance Secretary, Ministry Of Finance (Department Of Revenue), Central Board Of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Vijay Advocate on behalf of Mr. Jaideep Malik Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Sandeep Pathak Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Judgment 03/09/2025 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 Offider (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 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:35247-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-14431/2022] 3. Ground referred to is that the notice dated 25th July 2022 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Offider (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. 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 25th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty, as prayed. 7. In case, if any, re-assessment order is passed, the same will also stand quashed and set aside. 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:35247-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-14431/2022] 8. Petition disposed. 9. Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT-Seema/20