LATIYAL HANDICRAFTS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/23972/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:53331-DB09 December 2025Author: PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, SANJEET PUROHIT3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Court held that so long as the law declared in Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which establishes that jurisdiction vests with the Faceless Assessing Officer, continues to hold the field, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer are not legally sustainable. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 30.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with all consequential proceedings, was quashed and set aside for being without jurisdiction. The Court clarified that liberty is reserved for the respondent-Revenue to proceed afresh through the Faceless Assessing Officer, strictly in accordance with law and the prevailing statutory framework, subject to limitations and other legal requirements. Furthermore, the Revenue is at liberty to act in accordance with law if the aforementioned judgments are reversed, set aside, or materially modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner stated that other grounds were not being pressed and would be taken up at an appropriate stage.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Latiyal Handicrafts, through its partner Dev Narayan Ranga, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 30.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent is the Income Tax Officer, W-3(1), Jodhpur. The respondent's counsel submitted that the controversy is covered by the High Court's judgment in Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer, which followed the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax. These judgments held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) are invalid. The Revenue had filed a Special Leave Petition against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued by the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is invalid when jurisdiction vests with the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner implicitly relies on the principle that notices issued by the wrong authority are invalid, as argued by the respondent and supported by the cited judgments. Revenue's Contention: The respondent acknowledges that the prevailing legal position, as per Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., supports the petitioner's claim. However, the respondent seeks liberty to revive proceedings if these judgments are set aside or materially modified by the Supreme Court, given that a Special Leave Petition has been filed and notice issued. The respondent also notes they are acting under the mandate of ITAT directions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2025:RJ-JD:53331-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23972/2025 Latiyal Handicrafts, Through Its Partner Dev Narayan Ranga, S/o Shri Radhe Shyam Ranga, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of 57, Jawala Vihar, Near Kothari Hospital, Jodhpur, Rajasthan- 342008. ----Petitioner Versus The Income Tax Officer, W-3(1), Jodhpur, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Arora For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Bhandari HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order 09/12/2025

1.

Mr. Sunil Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the Tax Officer & Another [2025 SCC OnLine Raj 3386], which Income-Tax, Circle-15(1)(2) [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bom.). It is held therein that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, are invalid.

2.

Learned counsel, however, submits that the respondent is acting under the mandate of the directions issued by the learned ITAT. He further submits that against the judgment in Hexaware (Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:16:04 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:34:43 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53331-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-23972/2025] Technologies Ltd. (supra), the Revenue has preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and notice has been issued. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that while the prayer of the petitioner may be granted in view of the prevailing legal position, liberty be reserved in favour of the Revenue to revive the proceedings in the event the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra) or Shree Cement Limited (supra) are set aside or materially modified by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

3.

This Court finds that so long as the law declared in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra) and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) holding that the jurisdiction vests with the Faceless Assessing Officer continues to hold the field, issuance of notices by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer would not be legally sustainable.

4.

Accordingly, this Court directs that, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties, the impugned notice dated 30.08.2024 (Annexure-2) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with all proceedings consequential thereto, are hereby quashed and set aside, being without jurisdiction.

5.

However, this Court clarifies that liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent-Revenue to proceed afresh through the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), strictly in accordance with law and the prevailing statutory framework, subject to limitation and other legal requirements.

6.

It is further made clear that in the event the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer (Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:16:04 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:34:43 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53331-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-23972/2025] (supra) or Shree Cement Limited (supra) are reversed, set aside, or materially modified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondent-Revenue shall be at liberty to act in accordance with law.

7.

In view of above, counsel for petitioner states that other grounds raised are not being pressed upon and they will be taken at appropriate stage, if required. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to apply within two weeks to withdraw the appeal already filed.

8.

Undertaking accepted.

9.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 6-nirmala Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:16:04 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:34:43 AM)

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →