NIKHIL JAIN vs. THE ASST./DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/996/2026HC Rajasthan2026:RJ-JD:2693-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 22, 2024, issued under Section 148 for AY 2020-2021, and the consequential assessment order dated February 11, 2025, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144-B, 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, 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 and reserved the right to urge them later, undertaking to withdraw the appeal filed within two weeks.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Nikhil Jain, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 22, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-2021, and the consequential assessment order dated February 11, 2025, passed by the Assessing Officer for the same assessment year. The respondent Revenue, represented by the Asst./Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Jodhpur, conceded that the issue was covered by prior 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 also mentioned that a Special Leave Petition 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 22.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-2021, and the consequential assessment order dated 11.02.2025, passed by the respondent Assessing Officer, are without jurisdiction. 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 notices issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers, rather than Faceless Assessing Officers, are legally unsustainable. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue acknowledged that the controversy was covered by the aforementioned judgments. They submitted that if the petition were allowed, liberty should be granted to revive proceedings if the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and Sharda Devi Chhajer are set aside or materially modified by the Supreme Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144-B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2026:RJ-JD:2693-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 996/2026 Nikhil Jain S/o Gautamchand Jain, Aged About 34 Years, C-193, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur-342001, Rajasthan. Pan - Ambpj4877D ----Petitioner Versus The Asst./deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Jodhpur Having Its Address At Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Chundawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. KK Bissa 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 22.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2020-2021 as well as consequential assessment order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the respondent Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. On a court query, learned counsel for the respondent, at the outset, fairly submits that the controversy in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Sharda Devi Chhajer v. Income Tax Officer & Anr1., which, in turn 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 1 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 3386 2 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1249 (Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 06:37:51 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:43:13 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:2693-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-996/2026] 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 22.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2020-2021 as well as the consequential assessment order dated 11.02.2025 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 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 06:37:51 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:43:13 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:2693-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-996/2026]

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. He also undertakes to apply for withdrawal of the appeal already filed within a period of two weeks. The undertaking is accepted.

10.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

11.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (ARUN MONGA),J 102-raksha/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 06:37:51 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:43:13 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 →