ASHUTOSH CHOUDHARY SON OF TARACHAND CHOUDHARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CW/19454/2025HC RajasthanRJHC02104368202517 December 2025Author: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Court acknowledged that the issue raised concerned the issuance of a notice by the JAO. However, since a final order had already been passed and an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority, the Court found it inappropriate to pass orders that would render the appeal redundant. Citing its own previous decision in Samir Andrea Kasliwal vs. Principal Chief Commissioner & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15349/2024), which relied on judgments in Jasjit Singh and Sharda Devi Chhajer, the Court held that proceedings could not have been initiated by the JAO, nor could the faceless regime have passed orders later if the initial initiation was flawed. Nevertheless, to avoid making the pending appeal redundant, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). This authority was directed to consider the objections and pass appropriate orders within 15 days, following the Court's previous judgment on quashing proceedings based on a JAO's notice. The writ petition was disposed of on these directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ashutosh Choudhary, filed a Civil Writ Petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, challenging the issuance of a notice by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). The respondent was the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4, Jaipur. The Court noted that a final order had already been passed after the notice was issued, and an appeal had been filed before the Appellate Authority. This procedural history was deemed material to the decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) were valid, considering the introduction of the faceless regime? (Question of law, relating to the validity of proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the assessee's specific arguments in this writ petition. However, the context suggests the challenge is against the JAO's notice and subsequent proceedings, likely arguing for their invalidity under the faceless regime. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's specific arguments in this writ petition. However, the revenue is represented by counsel who accepted notice.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[2025:RJ-JP:50907-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19454/2025 Ashutosh Choudhary Son Of Tarachand Choudhary, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of K - 10, Fateh Tiba, Adarsh Nagar, Moti Dungari Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302016 ----Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4, Jaipur Having Its Address At 4Th Floor, LIC Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka Mr. Mukesh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Ms. Tanushka Saxena and Ms. Chinki Choudhary HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

Order 17/12/2025

Issue notice to the respondent.

Mr. Siddharth Bapna, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

Admittedly, the issue raised in the present petition is related to the issuance of notice by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer (herein after referred to as ‘JAO’), however, we note that after the Chief Commissioner & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition

[2025:RJ-JP:50907-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-19454/2025] No.15349/2024), we have considered the law as laid down by this Court as well as Punjab & Haryana High Court and thereafter held as under:

“4. Admittedly, in all these cases, the final order was passed after the notice was issued by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer. Although the faceless regime has been introduced. In view of the judgments passed in the cases of Jasjit Singh (supra) as well as Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra), the proceedings could not have been initiated by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer nor the faceless regime could have later on passed orders. However, it is noticed that the appeals have been preferred against the final order and, therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court to pass orders resulting in making the appeal redundant.

In these circumstances, we direct the petitioners to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) who will take into consideration and pass appropriate orders accordingly within a period of 15 days following the judgment already rendered by this Court relating to quashing of the proceedings based on the notice issued by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer.”

Having taken the view as above, we allow the petitioner to take up the concerned objections before the Appellate Authority namely, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), who will take this into consideration and pass appropriate orders accordingly within

[2025:RJ-JP:50907-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-19454/2025] a period of fifteen days following the judgement already rendered by this Court relating to quashing of the proceedings based on the notice issued by the JAO.

The present Civil Writ Petition stands disposed of.

All pending application also stands disposed of. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ Gaurav/Riya/19

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →