DEWASI MADAN LAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

CW/24522/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:54737-DB16 December 2025Author: PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, SANJEET PUROHIT3 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that as long as the law declared in Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (holding 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 March 19, 2025, issued under Section 148A(3) 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 was reserved in favour of the respondent-Revenue to proceed afresh through the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) strictly in accordance with law, subject to limitations and legal requirements. Furthermore, the Revenue was granted liberty to act in accordance with law if the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited were 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, Dewasi Madan Lal, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 19, 2025, issued under Section 148A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Pali. The petitioner argued that the notice was invalid as it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondents, including the Income Tax Officer and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, acknowledged that the issue was covered by previous judgments of the Rajasthan High Court in Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another and the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax. The Revenue also informed the court that a Special Leave Petition had been filed before the Supreme Court against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), are invalid, turning on the interpretation of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly concerning faceless assessment procedures. Assessee's Contention: The notice issued by the JAO is invalid because jurisdiction vests with the FAO under the faceless assessment regime. Revenue's Contention: The respondents submitted that they were acting under the mandate of ITAT directions and that a Special Leave Petition was pending before the Supreme Court against the Bombay High Court's judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. They sought liberty to revive proceedings if the said judgments were set aside or modified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[2025:RJ-JD:54737-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24522/2025 Dewasi Madan Lal S/o Sh. Aman Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Shop No. 6, Madkaikar Classic Building, Near Udpi Hotel, Old Goa, Tiswadi, 10 Goa -403110 Pan- Apupl5254L ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Pali Pali, Mandia Road, Pali, Rajasthan - 306401 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Jodhpur, Aayakar Bhavan, Lal Maidan Jodhpur -342010 3. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, North-Block, New Delhi- 110001. 4. Central Board Of Direct Tax, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi - 110001. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. David Mehla. For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa. HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order 16/12/2025

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- (Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 03:50:11 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:35:25 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:54737-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-24522/2025] 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.

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 19.03.2025 (Annexure-3) issued under Section 148A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with all proceedings consequential thereto, are hereby quashed and set aside, being without jurisdiction. (Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 03:50:11 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:35:25 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:54737-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-24522/2025]

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.

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 (PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 154-sumer/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 03:50:11 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:35:25 AM)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →