RAKESH KUMAR VIJAY, SON OF SHRI NATHU LAL VIJAY, vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/20723/2025HC RajasthanRJHC02112984202527 January 2026Author: PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,SANGEETA SHARMA3 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. (holding that jurisdiction vests with the Faceless Assessing Officer) remains in force, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer are not legally sustainable. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 31.03.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the assessment order dated 31.03.2023, 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), 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 and would be taken up at an appropriate stage if required. The writ petition was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar Vijay, challenged notices and assessment orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, 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 a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) are invalid. The revenue also informed the court that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued by the Supreme Court. The revenue sought liberty to revive proceedings if the aforementioned judgments were set aside or modified.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) are invalid when the assessment is meant to be conducted by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), as per the prevailing legal framework? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner implicitly relies on the established legal position that notices must be issued by the appropriate authority, which in this case, should be the FAO. The petitioner seeks the quashing of the impugned notice and assessment order based on this principle. Revenue's Contention: The respondent revenue concedes that the controversy is covered by the judgments in Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which declare notices from JAO invalid. However, the revenue seeks liberty to revive proceedings if these judgments are overturned by the Supreme Court, given that an SLP has been admitted against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision.

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:3490-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20723/2025 Rakesh Kumar Vijay, Son Of Shri Nathu Lal Vijay, Aged About 72 Years, Resident Of C-66, Saket Colony, Opp. Police Station, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur Having Its Address At Room No. 416, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohan Chahar, Adv. Ms. Satvika Jha, Adv. for Mr. Siddhath Ranka For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna, Adv. Ms. Tanushka Saxena, Adv. 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:3490-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-20723/2025]

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 31.03.2022 (Annexure-2) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the assessment order dated 31.03.2023 (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:3490-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-20723/2025] 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 4-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 →