SHRI BHARAT BOMB vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/22125/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:53281-DB09 December 2025Bench: PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, SANJEET PUROHIT4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that as long as the law declared in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra) and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), which vests jurisdiction with the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), continues to hold the field, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) are not legally sustainable. Consequently, the impugned notices dated 24.06.2025, issued under Section 148A(3) and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with all consequential proceedings, were quashed and set aside for being without jurisdiction. The Court clarified that liberty is reserved for the respondent-Revenue to proceed afresh through the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) in accordance with law, subject to limitations and legal requirements. Furthermore, the Revenue is at liberty to act in accordance with law if the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited are reversed, set aside, or materially modified by the Supreme Court. The petitioner stated that other grounds were not pressed and undertook to withdraw the appeal already filed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri Bharat Bomb, filed two writ petitions before the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur challenging notices issued by the Income-Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-2, Udaipur, and the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Udaipur. The notices challenged were dated 24.06.2025, issued under Section 148A(3) and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue, represented by the ITO and Additional/Joint Commissioner, appeared before the court. The revenue's counsel submitted that the controversy was covered by prior judgments of the High Court and the Bombay High Court, which held notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) to be invalid. The revenue also noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed before the Supreme Court against one of these judgments, and notice had been issued.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) are invalid when the assessment proceedings should have been conducted by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), as per the prevailing legal framework? Assessee's Contention: The assessee implicitly relies on the established legal position that notices issued by the JAO in such circumstances are invalid. The petitioner's counsel stated that other grounds raised were not being pressed and would be taken up at an appropriate stage. Revenue's Contention: The revenue concedes that the controversy is covered by the judgment in Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another [2025 SCC OnLine Raj 3386], which followed Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-15(1)(2) [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bom.). The revenue acknowledges that these judgments hold notices issued by the JAO to be invalid. However, the revenue seeks liberty to revive proceedings if the aforementioned judgments are set aside or materially modified by the Supreme Court, as an SLP has been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JD:53281-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22125/2025 Shri Bharat Bomb S/o Shanti Lal Bomb, Aged About 50 Years, 143, Near S. Paul School, Opposite Mother Teresa Ashram, Krishnapura, Udaipur (Rajasthan) - 313001. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income-Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Ward-2, Udaipur, Subcity Centre Savina, Udaipur (Rajasthan) - 313001 E Udaipur.ito2.1@incometaxgov.in. 2. Additional/joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-2, Udaipur Subcity Centre Savina, Udaipur (Rajasthan) - 313001 ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18196/2025 Shri Bharat Bomb S/o Shri Shanti Lal Bomb, Aged About 50 Years, 143, Near S. Paul School, Opposite Mother Teresa Ashram, Krishnapura, Udaipur (Rajasthan) - 313001 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income-Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Ward-2, Udaipur, Sub City Centre Savina, Udaipur (Rajasthan) - 313001 E- Udaipur.ito2.1@incometaxgov.in 2. Additional/ Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-2, Udaipur Subcity Centre Savina, Udaipur (Rajasthan) - 313001 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Mohit Singhvi, with Mr. Vishwas Khatri. For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa. HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT O R D E R (Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 11:36:55 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:39:36 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53281-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-22125/2025] 09/12/2025 1.  Mr. K.K. Bissa, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, at the outset, fairly submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petitions is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another [2025 SCC OnLine Raj 3386], which has followed the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle- 15(1)(2) [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bom.). It is held therein that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, are invalid. 2. Learned counsel, however, submits that the respondents are acting under the mandate of the directions issued by the learned ITAT. He further submits that against the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), the Revenue has preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and notice has been issued. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that while the prayer of the petitioner may be granted in view of the prevailing legal position, liberty be reserved in favour of the Revenue to revive the proceedings in the event the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra) or Shree Cement Limited (supra) are set aside or materially modified by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 3. This Court finds that so long as the law declared in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra) and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) holding that the jurisdiction vests with the Faceless Assessing Officer continues to hold the field, issuance of notices by (Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 11:36:55 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:39:36 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53281-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-22125/2025] the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer would not be legally sustainable. 4.  Accordingly, this Court directs that, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties, the impugned notice dated 24.06.2025 (Annexure-4) issued under Section 148A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as well as the consequential notice dated 24.06.2025 (Annexure-5) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with all proceedings consequential thereto, are hereby quashed and set aside, being without jurisdiction. 5.  However, this Court clarifies that liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent-Revenue to proceed afresh through the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), strictly in accordance with law and the prevailing statutory framework, subject to limitation and other legal requirements. 6.  It is further made clear that in the event the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra) or Shree Cement Limited (supra) are reversed, set aside, or materially modified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondent-Revenue shall be at liberty to act in accordance with law. 7. In view of above, counsel for petitioner states that other grounds raised are not being pressed upon and they will be taken at appropriate stage, if required. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to apply within two weeks to withdraw the appeal already filed. 8. Undertaking accepted. (Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 11:36:55 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:39:36 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53281-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-22125/2025] 9.  Accordingly, the writ petitions stand disposed of. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 2 - 3 Zeeshan

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 11:36:55 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:39:36 AM)

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →