RAJ BOTHRA HUF vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/952/2026HC Rajasthan2026:RJ-JD:2710-DB16 January 2026Author: ARUN MONGA, YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that jurisdiction vests exclusively with the Faceless Assessing Officer. Therefore, as long as the judgments in Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. hold the field, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer are legally unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 20.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2023-2024, along with all consequential proceedings, were quashed for lack of jurisdiction. The Revenue was granted liberty to initiate proceedings afresh through the Faceless Assessing Officer, subject to compliance with statutory frameworks, limitation, and other legal requirements. Furthermore, the Revenue was granted liberty to act afresh if the Supreme Court reverses, sets aside, or materially modifies the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and Sharda Devi Chhajer.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Raj Bothra HUF, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 20.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2023-2024. The notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The respondent-Revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Jodhpur, submitted that the issue was covered by the High Court's judgment in Sharda Devi Chhajer v. Income Tax Officer & Anr., which followed the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax. These judgments held that notices issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer, are without jurisdiction. The Revenue also mentioned a pending Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, is without jurisdiction. Assessee's Contention: The assessee implicitly argued that the notice was bad in law as it was issued by the wrong authority, relying on the High Court's prior pronouncements. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue conceded that the controversy was covered by the High Court's judgment in Sharda Devi Chhajer and the Bombay High Court's judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., both holding that jurisdiction vests exclusively with the Faceless Assessing Officer. The Revenue sought liberty to revive proceedings if these judgments were set aside or materially modified by the Supreme Court, against which a Special Leave Petition was pending.

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
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 952/2026 Raj Bothra Huf, Through Its Karta Raj Bothra S/o Shikhar Chand Bothra, Aged About 48 Years, Shradha Celebrity Homes D 402, Pal Road Tejeshwar Nagar, Jodhpur 342003, Rajasthan. Pan Aaqhr7587H ----Petitioner Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Jodhpur Having Its Address Ataayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Chundawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Bhandari HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

Order 16/01/2026

1.

The present writ petition is filed against the impugned notice dated 20.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2023-2024. 2. On a court query, learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset, fairly submits that the controversy in the present writ petitions is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Sharda Devi Chhajer v. Income Tax Officer & Anr.1, which, inturn has followed the similar prior view taken by the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax2, wherein it has been held that 1 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 3386 2 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1249 (Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 06:36:44 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:43:07 AM)

(2 of 3) [CW-952/2026] notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, are without jurisdiction.

3.

It is further submitted that the Revenue has preferred a Special Leave Petition against the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and notice has been issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4.

Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that in case this court is inclined to allow the petition, liberty be granted in favour of the Revenue to revive the proceedings in the event the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) and Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra) are set aside or materially modified by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Request seems fair.

5.

We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by Division Bench of this court in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra) and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), holding that jurisdiction vests exclusively with the Faceless Assessing Officer. Accordingly, so long the judgments, ibid, continue to hold the field, issuance of notices by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is legally unsustainable.

6.

In the premise, keeping all rights and contentions, as raised herein, the impugned notice dated 20.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2023-2024, along with all proceedings consequential thereto, are quashed for lack of jurisdiction.

7.

Liberty is, however, granted to the respondents-Revenue to initiate proceedings afresh through the Faceless Assessing Officer, (Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 06:36:44 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:43:07 AM)

(3 of 3) [CW-952/2026] in accordance with law within the prevailing statutory framework, subject to compliance of limitation and other legal requirements.

8.

It is clarified that in the event the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) and Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra) are reversed/set aside or materially modified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondent-Revenue shall be at liberty to act afresh in accordance thereof.

9.

In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the other grounds raised herein are not pressed at this stage and be kept open to be urged, if required, at an appropriate later stage.

10.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

11.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (ARUN MONGA),J 14-raksha/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 06:36:44 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:43:07 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 →