M/S SUNSHINE EXPORTS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/1072/2026HC Rajasthan2026:RJ-JD:2823-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 views of the Rajasthan High Court in Sharda Devi Chhajer and the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., held that jurisdiction vests exclusively with the Faceless Assessing Officer. Consequently, the issuance of notices by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is legally unsustainable as long as these judgments hold the field. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 27.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for A.Y. 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 and subject to limitation and other legal requirements. The Tribunal also clarified that if the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and Sharda Devi Chhajer are reversed, set aside, or materially modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Revenue shall be at liberty to act afresh accordingly. Other grounds raised by the petitioner were not pressed at this stage.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Sunshine Exports, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 27.03.2025 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-Revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer, 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 the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, 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 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, thereby rendering it legally unsustainable? Assessee's Contention: The assessee relied on the 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, which held that jurisdiction vests exclusively with the Faceless Assessing Officer. Therefore, the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was invalid. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue acknowledged that the case 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 Hon'ble Apex Court. The Revenue did not contest the core issue of jurisdiction but sought protective liberty.

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:2823-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1072/2026 M/s Sunshine Exports, Plot No. 155, Patrakar Colony, New Power House Road Circ,jodhpur 342001, Rajasthan. Pan- Adbfs7159J ----Petitioner Versus The Income Tax Officer, 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 Mr. GS Chouhan 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 27.03.2025 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 06:39:08 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:43:20 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:2823-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-1072/2026]

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 27.03.2025 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 06:39:08 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:43:20 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:2823-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-1072/2026]

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 105-raksha/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 06:39:08 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:43:20 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 →