MANISH MODI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/24238/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:54266-DB16 December 2025Author: PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, SANJEET PUROHIT3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that so long as the law declared in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra) and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) continues to hold the field, which states that jurisdiction vests with the Faceless Assessing Officer, the issuance of notices by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is not legally sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 24.03.2024 under Section 148A(3) and the consequential notice dated 20.03.2025 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with all consequential proceedings, were 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 (FAO) strictly in accordance with law, subject to limitations and legal requirements. Furthermore, liberty was granted to the Revenue to act in accordance with law if the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited are reversed, set aside, or materially modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner's counsel stated that other grounds were not pressed and undertook to withdraw a previously filed appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manish Modi, filed a writ petition challenging notices issued under Section 148A(3) and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent is the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jodhpur. The petitioner argued that the notices were invalid. The respondent conceded that the issue was covered by previous judgments but sought liberty to revive proceedings if those judgments were overturned. The High Court noted that the prevailing legal position, as established in Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) are invalid. The petitioner stated that other grounds were not pressed and undertook to withdraw a previously filed appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148A(3) and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) are invalid when the assessment is to be conducted by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? (Question of law, turning on the scheme of faceless assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The notices issued by the JAO are invalid, as jurisdiction vests with the FAO under the faceless assessment scheme. Revenue's Contention: The controversy is covered by the judgment in Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another, which followed Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax. However, the Revenue has filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice has been issued. Therefore, while the petitioner's prayer may be granted, liberty should be reserved for the Revenue to revive proceedings if the aforementioned judgments are set aside or materially modified by the Supreme Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2025:RJ-JD:54266-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24238/2025 Manish Modi S/o Kailash Modi, Aged About 42 Years, Vijay Niwas, Bakhtawarmal Ji Ka Bagh, Chopasani Road, Jodhpur- 342001, Rajasthan. Pan - Ajepm4415E ----Petitioner Versus The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Jodhpur Having Its Address Ataayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Chundawat. For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa. HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order 16/12/2025

1.

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.

2.

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 (Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 03:35:44 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:35:08 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:54266-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-24238/2025] 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 24.03.2024 (Annexure-2) issued under Section 148A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as well as the consequential notice dated 20.03.2025 (Annexure-3) 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. (Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 03:35:44 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:35:08 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:54266-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-24238/2025]

6.

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.

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 petitions stand disposed of. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 4-sumer/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 03:35:44 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:35:08 AM)

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →