MEEMA DEVI SOLANKI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/959/2026HC Rajasthan2026:RJ-JD:2711-DB16 January 2026Author: ARUN MONGA, YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal, in respectful agreement with the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra) and the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), held that jurisdiction vests exclusively with the Faceless Assessing Officer. Consequently, as long as these judgments remain in effect, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer are legally unsustainable. The impugned notice dated March 20, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2022-2023, along with all consequential proceedings, were quashed for lack of jurisdiction. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to initiate proceedings afresh through the Faceless Assessing Officer in accordance with law, subject to compliance with limitation and other legal requirements. The Revenue was also granted liberty to act afresh if the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and Sharda Devi Chhajer are reversed or materially modified by the Supreme Court. The petitioner stated that other grounds were not pressed at this stage.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Meema Devi Solanki, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 20, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2022-2023. The notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The respondent, the Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Jodhpur, conceded that the issue was covered by previous judgments of the Rajasthan High Court in Sharda Devi Chhajer v. Income Tax Officer & Anr. and the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax. These judgments held that notices issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers, instead of Faceless Assessing Officers, are without jurisdiction. The Revenue had filed a Special Leave Petition against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued by the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer, is without jurisdiction, turning on the interpretation of the faceless assessment scheme. Assessee's Contention: The assessee relied on the judgments in Sharda Devi Chhajer v. Income Tax Officer & Anr. and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, arguing that jurisdiction vests exclusively with the Faceless Assessing Officer, making the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer legally unsustainable. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue acknowledged that the issue was covered by the aforementioned judgments. They requested liberty to revive proceedings if these judgments were set aside or materially modified by the Supreme Court, to which the court found their request fair.

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
[2026:RJ-JD:2711-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 959/2026 Meema Devi Solanki W/o Bhanwar Lal Solanki, Aged About 75 Years, G-13, 1 St Phase, Boranada, Jodhpur-342001, Rajasthan. Pan- Adbps0147G ----Petitioner Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Jodhpur Having Its Address At Aayakar 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 2022-2023. 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 notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, are without jurisdiction. 1 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 3386 2 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1249 (Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 06:37:08 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:43:10 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:2711-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-959/2026]

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. 2022-2023, 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, in accordance with law within the prevailing statutory framework, subject to compliance of limitation and other legal requirements. (Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 06:37:08 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:43:10 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:2711-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-959/2026]

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 15-raksha/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 06:37:08 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:43:10 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 →