SMT. JAIMALA JAIN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)

PDF · subscribers
CW/1561/2026HC Rajasthan2026:RJ-JD:3665-DB21 January 2026Author: ARUN MONGA, YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court 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, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer are legally unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 24.03.2024 under Section 148 and the assessment order dated 20.03.2025 under Section 147, along with all consequential proceedings, were quashed for lack of jurisdiction. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to initiate proceedings afresh through the Faceless Assessing Officer, subject to compliance with law, limitation, and other legal requirements. It was further clarified that if the Supreme Court reverses or materially modifies the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and Sharda Devi Chhajer judgments, the Revenue would be at liberty to act accordingly. The petitioner stated that other grounds were not pressed and undertook to withdraw the appeal filed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Smt. Jaimala Jain, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessment Officer, and the consequent assessment order dated 20.03.2025 passed for Assessment Year 2022-23. The respondents, represented by the Revenue, 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 decision 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 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 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential assessment order dated 20.03.2025 passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed, turning on the exclusive jurisdiction of the Faceless Assessing Officer versus the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner implicitly argued that the notice and assessment order were invalid due to being issued by the wrong authority, relying on the precedent set in Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue conceded that the controversy was covered by the aforementioned judgments, which held notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to be without jurisdiction. They requested liberty to revive proceedings if the Apex Court were to set aside or modify these judgments.

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:3665-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1561/2026 Smt. Jaimala Jain W/o Jitendra Jain, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of A-42, Gavar, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan- 342003. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur Rajastha302029. 2. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, (National Faceless Assessment Centre), 4Th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001. 3. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Though Secretary, Cbdt Headquarters, North Block (Department Of Revenue). New Delhi-110001. 4. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur Rajasthan- 342010. 5. Assistant Commssioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1, Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur Rajasthan-342010. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pranjul Mehta Mr. Kalpit Shishodia Mr. Dinesh Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. KK Bissa HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

Order 21/01/2026

1.

The present writ petition is filed against the impugned notice dated 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Jurisdictional Assessment Officer and the consequent (Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 10:21:02 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:43:45 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3665-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-1561/2026] assessment order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the respondent Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2022-23. 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 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 12025 SCC OnLine Raj 3386 22024 SCC OnLine Bom 1249 (Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 10:21:02 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:43:45 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3665-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-1561/2026] 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 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2022-2023 as well as the consequential impugned assessment order dated 20.03.2025 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. (Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 10:21:02 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:43:45 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3665-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-1561/2026]

10.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

11.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (ARUN MONGA),J 65-raksha/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 10:21:02 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:43:45 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 →