SHRI KISHORE RAJ SINGHVI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1

PDF · subscribers
CW/23922/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:53292-DB09 December 2025Author: PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, SANJEET PUROHIT3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Court held that as long as the law declared in Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. 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 22.03.2025 issued 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 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 other legal requirements. Furthermore, the Court made it clear that if the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited were reversed, set aside, or materially modified by the Supreme Court, the Revenue would be at liberty to act accordingly. 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, Shri Kishore Raj Singhvi, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 22.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). The respondents are the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur was hearing the petition. The revenue acknowledged that the issue was covered by previous judgments of the same court and the Bombay High Court, which held notices issued by JAOs, instead of Faceless Assessing Officers (FAOs), to be invalid. The revenue also mentioned that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed before the Supreme Court against the Bombay High Court's judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., and notice had been issued.

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 the jurisdiction vests with the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? (Question of law turning on Section 148 and the faceless assessment scheme). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner relied on the prevailing legal position established by 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 JAOs instead of FAOs are invalid. Revenue's Contention: The revenue conceded that the controversy was covered by the aforementioned judgments. However, they submitted that they were acting under the mandate of the ITAT and that an SLP had been filed before the Supreme Court against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment. They sought liberty to revive proceedings if those judgments were set aside or materially modified by the Apex Court.

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:53292-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23922/2025 Shri Kishore Raj Singhvi S/o Shri Paras Raj Singhvi, Aged About 78 Years, House No. 130, Ratan Nagar, Shobhawaton Ki Dhani, Kheme Ka Kuan Pal Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)- 342005. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle-1, Jodhpur, Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur. 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building At Statue Circle, Jaipur (Rajasthan)-302005 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Gattani For Respondent(s) : Mr. KK Bissa HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order 09/12/2025

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 (Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:15:38 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:38:32 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53292-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-23922/2025] 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.

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 22.03.2025 (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. (Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:15:38 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:38:32 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53292-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-23922/2025]

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. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 5-nirmala Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:15:38 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:38:32 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 →