WAGAD INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the controversy in the present batch of writ petitions concerning the jurisdiction of the Faceless Assessing Officer versus the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was settled by its previous judgment in 'Sharda Devi Chhajer'. Consequently, the Court declared the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officers as illegal and quashed them. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed via the mode of Faceless Assessment in terms of the 'Sharda Devi Chhajer' judgment. The period during which the petitions remained pending before the Court was to be excluded for the Faceless Assessing Officer proceedings. Any issues of limitation were to be decided by the Assessing Officer in terms of 'Rajeev Bansal'. The Court clarified that any other unadjudicated issues could be agitated again. The proceedings under the Faceless Assessment Scheme were to be conducted strictly in accordance with law.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Wagad Infraprojects Private Limited, filed three writ petitions challenging orders and notices issued under Section 148A(d) and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated for these specific petitions, but the lead case mentions Assessment Year 2013-14. The petitions were filed against the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Udaipur, the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Jaipur, and the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The core of the dispute revolves around the jurisdiction of the Faceless Assessing Officer versus the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The parties agreed that the controversy was covered by a previous judgment of the same court in 'M/s. S.M. Industries vs. Union of India & Anr.'.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the impugned order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside, considering the issue of jurisdiction between a Faceless Assessing Officer and a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the proceedings initiated by way of notices for reopening of assessment were illegal. The parties agreed to raise a limited issue concerning the jurisdiction of the Faceless Assessing Officer vis-à-vis the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and sought to keep other issues open for future adjudication. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment, but implicitly defended the notices and orders issued. The judgment indicates a consensus between parties on the limited issue.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 29/07/2025
With the consent of the parties that the controversy involved in the present matters is squarely covered with the order passed by this Court in the case of ‘M/s. S.M. Industries vs. Union of India & Anr.’ (D.B. Civil Writ No.3270/2023 decided on (Uploaded on 30/07/2025 at 04:38:18 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:21:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33577-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-19149/2024] 20.03.2025) along with other connected writ petitions; the order dated 20.03.2025 is reproduced hereunder :- “1. Since the instant petitions involves an identical controversy, therefore, the same are being decided by this common judgment, while taking the prayer clauses, facts and submission from the above-numbered D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16678/2022, while treating the same as a lead case.
The prayer clauses read as under: “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this petition for writ preferred by the petitioner may kindly be allowed in toto and the following reliefs may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner:- A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order under Section 148 A Sub Clause (d) of Income Tax Act, 1961 passed on 29.07.2022 (Annexure-12) and impugned notice issued under Section 148 on 29.07.2022 (Annexure-13) may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside. B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the proceedings initiated by way of notice dated 22.05.2022 (Annexure-7) for reopening of assessment, reassessment or recomputation may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside and the respondents may kindly be perpetually restrained to initiate proceedings under Section 147 to 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the relevant Assessment Year 2013-14 questioning the same. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be passed in favor of the petitioner.”
Learned counsel for both the parties, present in the Court, at the time of reserving of the judgment, submitted that they are raising a limited issue of Faceless Assessing Officer viz-a-viz (Uploaded on 30/07/2025 at 04:38:18 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:21:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33577-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-19149/2024] Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and seek to keep rest of the issues open for future adjudication.
This Court observes that the controversy in the present batch of writ petitions concerns the same issue of law as has already been settled by this Court in the case of Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra) regarding the dispute vis-a-vis jurisdiction of Faceless and Jurisdictional Assessing Authority, and therefore, the same settled proposition of law shall govern the field in the instant case as well.
This Court, on the basis of the joint prayers being made and the consensus being arrived at between counsel for the respective parties, observes that all the petitions, which were reserved and are now being disposed of, while treating the Jurisdictional Assessing Officers’ notices illegal. The same are quashed with a liberty to the respondents to proceed via mode of Faceless Assessment in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra).
The limitation for the period when the petitions have remained pending before this Court shall be excluded for the Faceless Assessing Officer proceedings. In case, there is any issue of Limitation, the Assessing Officer shall be free to decide it in terms of Rajeev Bansal (supra). In case any other issue remains unadjudicated, the parties shall be free to agitate it again before this Court. It is also made clear that any further proceedings under the Faceless Assessment Scheme shall be done strictly in accordance with law.”
In light of the aforequoted judgment, these writ petitions are disposed of in the same terms. (SANDEEP TANEJA), J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 126-127-128 -Ravi Khandelwal Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 30/07/2025 at 04:38:18 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:21:00 PM)
More judgments on Section 148A
- Rajesh Kumar Khandelwal, Jaipur vs ITO Ward 5(1), JaipurITA 21/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Kamleshkumar Somalal Bhatt, Himatnagar vs Income Tax Ofifcer, Ward 1, HimatnagarITA 2130/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal…ITA 658/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026