M/S POTALIA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/24695/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:54417-DB17 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 (supra) and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) continues to hold that jurisdiction vests with the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) are not legally sustainable. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 18.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and 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) 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 stated that other grounds were not pressed and would be taken up at an appropriate stage, undertaking to withdraw an already filed appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Potalia Enterprises Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 18.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent is the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jodhpur. The petitioner argued that the notice was invalid. The respondent conceded 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, Circle-15(1)(2), which held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) are invalid. The respondent also noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued by the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 18.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is invalid, and consequently, all consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on the provisions governing faceless assessment and jurisdictional authority). Assessee's Contention: The notice issued by the JAO is invalid, relying on the judgments in Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-15(1)(2). Revenue's Contention: The controversy is covered by the aforementioned judgments. However, the Revenue sought liberty to revive proceedings if the said judgments are set aside or materially modified by the Supreme Court, as an SLP had been admitted against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision.

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:54417-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24695/2025 M/s Potalia Enterprises Private Limited, Through Its Director Moola Ram Choudhary S/o Goma Ram Choudhary, Age About 63 Years, 62-63 Udhyog Nagar, Second Phase Basni Jodhpur - 342001 Rajasthan. Pan - Aahcp1480B ----Petitioner Versus The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Jodhpur Having Its Address At Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshvardhan Singh. For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa. HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order 17/12/2025

1.

Mr. K.K. Bissa, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, at the outset, fairly submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition 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 (Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 12:14:56 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:36:53 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:54417-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-24695/2025] 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.

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 18.03.2025 (Annex.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 12:14:56 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:36:53 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:54417-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-24695/2025]

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 petition stands disposed of. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 222-Zeeshan Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 12:14:56 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:36:53 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 →