DISHA BUILDHOME PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/1421/2026HC RajasthanRJHC02005958202627 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 (supra) and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) 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 01.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings were quashed and set aside for being without jurisdiction. The Court clarified 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 limitations and other legal requirements. The petitioner stated that other grounds raised were not being pressed and would be taken up at an appropriate stage if required.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Disha Buildhome Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 01.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur. The respondent-Revenue acknowledged that the issue was 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. These judgments held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) are invalid. The Revenue also noted that a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), are invalid, as per Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? The petitioner argued that such notices are invalid, relying on the judgments in Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax. The respondent-Revenue conceded that the controversy is covered by these judgments but sought liberty to revive proceedings if these judgments are set aside or modified by the Apex Court, as a Special Leave Petition had been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision. The Revenue's primary contention was that while the prevailing legal position supports the petitioner, they should be allowed to proceed if the higher courts overturn these precedents.

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:3503-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1421/2026 Disha Buildhome Private Limited, Through Its Director Shri Anil Verma Aged About 31 Years Son Of Shri Roshan Lal, R/o Plot No. 232, Himmat Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur Having Its Address At 4Th Floor, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohan Chatter for Mr. S.L. Poddar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with 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:3503-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-1421/2026]

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 01.03.2025 (Annexure-2) 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 Assessing Officer (FAO), strictly in accordance with law and the

[2026:RJ-JP:3503-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-1421/2026] 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 102-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 →