SHRI KHET SINGH vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/631/2026HC Rajasthan2026:RJ-JD:2269-DB14 January 2026Author: ARUN MONGA, YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the issuance of notices by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, is legally unsustainable as jurisdiction vests exclusively with the Faceless Assessing Officer. This decision was based on the respectful agreement with the views taken in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra) and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra). Consequently, the impugned notice dated 29.03.2024 under Section 148 and the consequential assessment order dated 27.12.2024 under Section 147, along with all proceedings, were quashed for lack of jurisdiction. The Revenue was granted liberty to initiate proceedings afresh through the Faceless Assessing Officer, subject to compliance with limitation and other legal requirements. Furthermore, the Revenue was granted liberty to act afresh if the Supreme Court reverses or materially modifies the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and Sharda Devi Chhajer. 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, Shri Khet Singh, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a consequent assessment order dated 27.12.2024 passed by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Phalodi, for Assessment Year 2020-21. The respondents, represented by learned counsel, 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 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 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequent assessment order dated 27.12.2024 passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are without jurisdiction due to being issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The notice and assessment order are invalid as they were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, not the Faceless Assessing Officer, which is contrary to established High Court precedents. Revenue's contention: The Revenue acknowledged that the issue is covered by the judgments in Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. They requested liberty to revive the proceedings if these judgments are set aside or materially modified by the Supreme Court, as a Special Leave Petition had 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:2269-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 631/2026 Shri Khet Singh S/o Shri Ganpat Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/ o Solankiya Tala, Shergarh, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)- 342025. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income-Tax Officer, Ward- Phalodi, Income Tax Office, Rai Ka Baag, Pokaran Road, Phalodi (Rajasthan) 342010. E- Phalodi.ito@incometaxgov.in. 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Jodhpur, Office Of Income Department, Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)- 342010. 3. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Assessment Unit, Income- Tax Department, 2Nd Floor, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi- 110001. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Gattani For Respondent(s) : Mr. KK Bissa HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

Order 14/01/2026

1.

The present writ petition is filed against the impugned notice dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the consequent assessment order dated 27.12.2024 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 petitions is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in (Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 06:33:27 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:45:22 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:2269-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-631/2026] 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 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 29.03.2024 issued under 12025 SCC OnLine Raj 3386 22024 SCC OnLine Bom 1249 (Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 06:33:27 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:45:22 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:2269-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-631/2026] Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2020-2021 as well as the consequential impugned assessment order dated 27.12.2024 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 7-raksha/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 06:33:27 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:45:22 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 →