M/S TUSHAR ENTERPRISES vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/1722/2026HC Rajasthan2026:RJ-JD:4638-DB27 January 2026Author: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, are without jurisdiction. This finding is based on the respectful agreement with the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Sharda Devi Chhajer and the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which established 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 27.08.2024 under Section 148 for AY 2021-2022, along with all consequential proceedings, was quashed for lack of jurisdiction. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to initiate proceedings afresh through the Faceless Assessing Officer, subject to legal requirements. The Revenue was also granted liberty to act afresh if the Supreme Court reverses or materially modifies the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and Sharda Devi Chhajer. Other grounds raised by the petitioner were not pressed and kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Tushar Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 27.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2021-2022. The notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The respondent, The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (1), Jodhpur, accepted notice. The Revenue acknowledged 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, which held that notices issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers instead of Faceless Assessing Officers are without jurisdiction. The Revenue also mentioned a pending Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment.

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 for Assessment Year 2021-2022? (Question of law turning on the procedural framework for faceless assessment). Assessee's Contention: The assessee implicitly argued that the notice was bad in law due to being issued by the wrong authority, relying on the precedent set by the Rajasthan High Court and Bombay High Court. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue conceded that the issue was covered by the judgments in Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. They submitted that if the court was inclined to allow the petition, liberty should be granted to revive proceedings if the aforementioned judgments are set aside or modified by the Supreme Court. The Revenue did not argue on the merits of the jurisdictional issue itself.

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:4638-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1722/2026 M/s Tushar Enterprises, Through Its Partner Shikhar Chand Bothra S/o Keshari Chand Bothra, Age About 71 Years, D-402 Pal Road Jodhpur 342008, Rajasthan. Pan Aafft7797L ----Petitioner Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (1), Jodhpur Having Its Address At Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshwardhan Singh Chundawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Bhandari HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order 27/01/2026

1.

Issue notice.

2.

Mr. Sunil Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice.

3.

The present writ petition is filed against the impugned notice dated 27.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2021-2022. 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, 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 1 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 3386 2 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1249 (Uploaded on 29/01/2026 at 10:33:00 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:43:58 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4638-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-1722/2026] notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, are without jurisdiction.

4.

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.

5.

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.

6.

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.

7.

In the premise, keeping all rights and contentions, as raised herein, the impugned notice dated 27.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2021-2022, along with all proceedings consequential thereto, are quashed for lack of jurisdiction.

8.

Liberty is, however, granted to the respondents-Revenue to initiate proceedings afresh through the Faceless Assessing Officer, (Uploaded on 29/01/2026 at 10:33:00 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:43:58 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4638-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-1722/2026] in accordance with law within the prevailing statutory framework, subject to compliance of limitation and other legal requirements.

9.

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.

10.

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.

11.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

12.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACJ 9-divyaP/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 29/01/2026 at 10:33:00 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:43:58 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 →