PINKCITY JEWELHOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
CW/20855/2025HC RajasthanRJHC02103945202528 January 20263 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 and Hexaware Technologies, stating that jurisdiction vests with the Faceless Assessing Officer, continues to be valid, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer are not legally sustainable. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 28.03.2025 under Section 148A(3) and the consequential notice dated 28.06.2025 under 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, strictly in accordance with law, subject to limitations and other legal requirements. The petitioner stated that other grounds were not being pressed and would be taken up later if required.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pinkcity Jewelhouse Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging notices issued under Section 148A(3) and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent is the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The core of the dispute revolves around the validity of notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent's counsel conceded that the issue is covered by previous judgments of the Rajasthan High Court in Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another and the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax. The Revenue had filed a Special Leave Petition against the Hexaware Technologies judgment, and notice had been issued by the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), are invalid, thereby rendering the assessment proceedings without jurisdiction? (Question of law, concerning the scheme of faceless assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner implicitly relies on the principle that notices must be issued by the competent authority, which, in the context of faceless assessment, should be the FAO. The petitioner seeks quashing of the notices based on this premise. Revenue's Contention: The respondent's counsel acknowledges that the controversy is covered by the judgments in Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies, which held such notices invalid. However, the Revenue seeks liberty to revive proceedings if these judgments are set aside or modified by the Supreme Court, as an SLP has been filed against the Hexaware Technologies judgment. The Revenue does not contest the invalidity of the current notices but seeks to preserve its future rights.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2026:RJ-JP:3691-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20855/2025 Pinkcity Jewelhouse Private Limited, Having Its Address At 76, Dhuleshwar Gardens, Jaipur Through Its Director Mrs. Kajal Goyal, Aged About 50 Years, W/o Manuj Goyal, R/o 83, Dhuleshwar Gardens, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Jaipur, Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302005 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka, with Ms. Satvika Jha. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka with Ms. Tanusha Saxena HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

Order 28/01/2026

1.

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 Juri ictional Assessing Officer (JAO), instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, are invalid.

[2026:RJ-JP:3691-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-20855/2025]

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 juri iction vests with the Faceless Assessing Officer continues to hold the field, issuance of notices by the Juri ictional 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 28.03.2025 (Annexure-2) issued under Section 148A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as well as the consequential notice dated 28.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with all proceedings consequential thereto, are hereby quashed and set aside, being without juri iction.

5.

However, this Court clarifies that liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent-Revenue to proceed afresh through the Faceless

[2026:RJ-JP:3691-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-20855/2025] Assessing Officer (FAO), strictly in accordance with law and the prevailing statutory framework, subject to limitation and other legal requirements.

6.

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.

7.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J Sudheer/HEENA/23

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →