M/S SARASWATI CRAFTS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/1322/2026HC Rajasthan2026:RJ-JD:3581-DB20 January 2026Author: ARUN MONGA, YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, are without jurisdiction. This decision was based on the respectful agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra) and the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), which established that jurisdiction vests exclusively with the Faceless Assessing Officer. Consequently, as long as these judgments remain in effect, the issuance of such notices by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is legally unsustainable. The impugned notice dated 30.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2016-2017, along with all consequential proceedings, were quashed for lack of jurisdiction. However, 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.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Saraswati Crafts, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 30.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-2017. The notice was issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur. The respondent-Revenue 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 a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer, are without jurisdiction. The Revenue also informed the court that a Special Leave Petition had been 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 a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer, is without jurisdiction, thereby rendering it legally unsustainable? 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, which held that notices issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers in such cases are without jurisdiction. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue acknowledged that the controversy was covered by the aforementioned judgments. They further submitted that if the court was inclined to allow the petition, liberty should be granted to revive the proceedings if the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and Sharda Devi Chhajer are set aside or materially modified by the Supreme Court. The Revenue did not contest the core issue of jurisdiction based on the existing High Court precedents.

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:3581-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1322/2026 M/s Saraswati Crafts, Through Its Partner Nayan Mehta S/o Rajendra Mehta Age About 30 Years 0 Pal Chopasani Ring Road Chopasani Jodhpur 342008, Rajasthan. Pan-Abbfs2395E ----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 20/01/2026

1.

The present writ petition is filed against the impugned notice dated 30.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2016-2017. 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 Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax2, wherein it has been held that 12025 SCC OnLine Raj 3386 22024 SCC OnLine Bom 1249 (Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 06:45:11 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:43:38 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3581-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-1322/2026] 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 30.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2016-2017, along with all proceedings consequential thereto, are quashed for lack of jurisdiction. (Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 06:45:11 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:43:38 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3581-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-1322/2026]

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.

10.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

11.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (ARUN MONGA),J 118-raksha/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 06:45:11 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:43:38 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 →