NARENDRA CHOUDHARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/1106/2026HC Rajasthan2026:RJ-JD:2895-DB16 January 2026Author: ARUN MONGA, YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that jurisdiction vests exclusively with the Faceless Assessing Officer. Therefore, as long as the judgments in Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. continue to hold the field, the issuance of notices by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is legally unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 18.11.2022 issued under Section 148 and the consequential assessment order dated 21.03.2024, along with all 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 in accordance with any reversal or material modification of the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and Sharda Devi Chhajer judgments by the Supreme Court. The petitioner stated that other grounds were not pressed and would be kept open. The writ petition was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Narendra Choudhary, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 18.11.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a consequent assessment order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax for Assessment Year 2020-21. The respondents are the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The respondents' counsel 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 view 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 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 the notice dated 18.11.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequent assessment order dated 21.03.2024 are without jurisdiction, thereby being legally unsustainable? Assessee's Contention: The assessee implicitly argues that the notice and order are bad in law due to lack of jurisdiction, as they were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, relying on the High Court's prior judgments. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue concedes that the controversy is covered by the High Court's judgments in Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held notices issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers to be without jurisdiction. The Revenue seeks liberty to revive proceedings if these judgments are set aside or materially modified by the Supreme Court, as a Special Leave Petition has been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2026:RJ-JD:2895-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1106/2026 Narendra Choudhary S/o Ram Ratan Choudhary, Aged About 57 Years, R/o 9, Bheru Sadan, Polo First, Paota, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jodhpur, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, 3423001. 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur Lic Building, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Bhawani Singh Road, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jaideep Saluja 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 18.11.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the consequent assessment order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the respondent Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. On a court query, learned counsel for the respondents, 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 & Anr.1, which, in turn has followed the similar prior view taken by the Bombay High 1 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 3386 (Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 06:40:29 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:43:26 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:2895-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-1106/2026] 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.

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 18.11.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2020-2021 as well as the consequential impugned assessment order dated 2 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1249 (Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 06:40:29 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:43:26 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:2895-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-1106/2026] 21.03.2024 passed under Section 147 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.

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 107-raksha/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 06:40:29 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:43:26 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 →