RAJNESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI SATYA PRAKASH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
CW/20905/2025HC RajasthanRJHC02113791202527 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 (FAO), notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) would not be legally sustainable. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 20.06.2025 issued 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 was 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.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajnesh Kumar, challenged a notice dated 20.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2), Jaipur; the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-4, Jaipur; and the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). The petitioner argued that the notice was invalid. The respondents conceded that the issue was 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. They also noted that a Special Leave Petition against the Hexaware Technologies judgment was pending before the Supreme Court. The High Court acknowledged that the prevailing legal position held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) were invalid.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) are invalid, concerning the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to faceless assessment and the jurisdiction of assessing officers? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice issued by the JAO was invalid. Revenue's Contention: The respondents conceded that the controversy was covered by the judgment in Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another, which followed Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax. They further submitted that while the prayer of the petitioner might be granted based on the prevailing legal position, liberty should be reserved for the Revenue to revive proceedings if the aforementioned judgments are set aside or materially modified by the Supreme Court, as a Special Leave Petition was pending against the Hexaware Technologies judgment.

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:3501-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20905/2025 Rajnesh Kumar Son Of Shri Satya Prakash, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Khaspur, Narnaul, Mahendragarh, Haryana-123001. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2), Jaipur, Income Tax Department, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302005 2. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-4, Jaipur, Income Tax Department, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302005 3. Central Board Of Direct Taxes (Cbdt), Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110011, Delhi India, Through Its Chairman ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohan Chatter for Mr. Hitesh Mishra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitin Jain 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

[2026:RJ-JP:3501-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-20905/2025] notices issued by the Juri ictional 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 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 20.06.2025 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:3501-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-20905/2025] 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. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 100-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 →