Shri Kishore Raj Singhvi vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax ...

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 16477 Raj
Judgement Date : 9 December, 2025

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Shri Kishore Raj Singhvi vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 9 December, 2025

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:53292-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23922/2025

Shri Kishore Raj Singhvi S/o Shri Paras Raj Singhvi, Aged About
78 Years, House No. 130, Ratan Nagar, Shobhawaton Ki Dhani,
Kheme Ka Kuan Pal Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)- 342005.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.       Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle-1,
         Jodhpur, Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur.
2.       Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur,
         New Central Revenue Building At Statue Circle, Jaipur
         (Rajasthan)-302005
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Prateek Gattani
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. KK Bissa



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 09/12/2025

1. Mr. K.K. Bissa, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, at the outset, fairly submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition 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 Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, are invalid.

2. Learned counsel, however, submits that the respondents are (Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:15:38 PM) (Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 09:30:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:53292-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-23922/2025] 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 jurisdiction vests with the Faceless Assessing Officer continues to hold the field, issuance of notices by the Jurisdictional 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 22.03.2025 (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 jurisdiction.

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 prevailing statutory framework, subject to limitation and other legal requirements.

(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:15:38 PM) (Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 09:30:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:53292-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-23922/2025]

6. It is further made clear that in the event the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra) or Shree Cement Limited (supra) are reversed, set aside, or materially modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondent-Revenue shall be at liberty to act in accordance with law.

7. 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. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to apply within two weeks to withdraw the appeal already filed.

8. Undertaking accepted.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 5-nirmala (Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 05:15:38 PM) (Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 09:30:16 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)