RAJESH KUMAR DHADDHA SON OF SHRI GHYAN CHAND DHADDHA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
CW/20769/2025HC RajasthanRJHC02107845202527 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 Ltd. continues to hold that jurisdiction vests with the Faceless Assessing Officer, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer are not legally sustainable. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 20.03.2024 under Section 148 and the assessment order dated 16.03.2025, 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 and the prevailing statutory framework, subject to limitations and other legal requirements. The petitioner stated that other grounds were not being pressed. The writ petition was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajesh Kumar Dhaddha, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 20.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an assessment order dated 16.03.2025. The respondent is the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur. The respondent's counsel conceded that the controversy is covered by the High Court's judgment in Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another, which followed the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax. The respondent sought liberty to revive proceedings if the aforementioned judgments are set aside by the Supreme Court, where an SLP has been admitted. The petitioner stated that other grounds were not being pressed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), are invalid under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as per the prevailing legal position established in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (Bom.) and Sharda Devi Chhajer (Raj.). The Assessee's Contention: The Assessee relies on the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and Sharda Devi Chhajer to argue that notices issued by the JAO are invalid. The petitioner also states that other grounds are not being pressed at this stage. The Revenue's Contention: The Revenue acknowledges that the case is covered by the aforementioned judgments. However, it submits that an SLP has been filed before the Supreme Court against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice has been issued. Therefore, the Revenue requests liberty to revive the proceedings if the said judgments are set aside or materially modified by the Apex Court. The Revenue also states it is acting under the mandate of ITAT directions.

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-JP:3499-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20769/2025 Rajesh Kumar Dhaddha Son Of Shri Ghyan Chand Dhaddha, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Gems Paradise, Gulab Niwas, M.i. Road, Jaipur 302001 ----Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur, Having Its Address Room No. 416, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohan Chahar Ms. Satvika Jha for Mr. Siddharth Ranka For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna Ms. Tanushka Saxena HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

Order 27/01/2026

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:3499-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-20769/2025]

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 20.03.2024 (Annexure-2) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the assessment order dated 16.03.2025 (Annexure-3), 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 Assessing Officer (FAO), strictly in accordance with law and the

[2026:RJ-JP:3499-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-20769/2025] 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. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 96-Nirmala/Shivani

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →