APEX DEVELOPERS vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) JAIPUR

Mr. K.K. Bissa, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, at the outset, fairly submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petitions is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another [2025 SCC OnLine Raj 3386], which has followed the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of 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. (Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 03:54:12 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:35:02 AM)

Learned counsel, however, submits that the respondents are acting under the mandate of the directions issued by the learned ITAT. He further submits that against the judgment in Hexaware 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.

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.

Accordingly, this Court directs that, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties, the impugned notice dated 24.03.2024 (Annexure-1) issued under Section 148A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as well as the consequential notice dated 06.03.2025 (Annexure-4) 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.

However, this Court clarifies that liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent-Revenue to proceed afresh through the Faceless (Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 03:54:12 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:35:02 AM)

It is further made clear that in the event the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer (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.

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.

Undertaking accepted.

Accordingly, the writ petitions stand disposed of. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 175-sumer/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 03:54:12 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:35:02 AM)