Wednesday, 13, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Manish Modi vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 16980 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 16980 Raj
Judgement Date : 16 December, 2025

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Manish Modi vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 16 December, 2025

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:54266-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24238/2025

Manish Modi S/o Kailash Modi, Aged About 42 Years, Vijay
Niwas, Bakhtawarmal Ji Ka Bagh, Chopasani Road, Jodhpur-
342001, Rajasthan. Pan - Ajepm4415E
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -1,
Jodhpur Having Its Address Ataayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road,
Jodhpur.
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Chundawat.
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. K.K. Bissa.



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

16/12/2025

1. Mr. K.K. Bissa, learned counsel appearing for the respondents,

at the outset, fairly submits that the controversy involved in the

present writ 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 Jurisdictional 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

(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 03:35:44 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:54266-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-24238/2025]

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 24.03.2024

(Annexure-2) issued under Section 148A(3) of the Income Tax

Act, 1961, as well as the consequential notice dated 20.03.2025

(Annexure-3) 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 20/12/2025 at 03:35:44 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:54266-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-24238/2025]

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 petitions stand disposed of. All pending

applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(SANJEET PUROHIT),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

4-sumer/-

(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 03:35:44 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter