[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Apex Developers vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 16 December, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:54740-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23951/2025
Apex Developers, Registered Office At Office No 1, 3Rd Floor,
City Plaza, Opposite Medical College, Jodhpur, Rajasthan -
342001, Through Partner Mohan Lal Jangid, S/o Budha Ram
Jangid, Aged 54 Years, Opp Ns Garden, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) Jaipur,
Jaipur,( Pcit Jaipur), 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Bhawani
Singh Road, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur 302005
2. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (National
Faceless Assessment Centre), 4Th Floor, Mayur Bhawan,
Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001.
3. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Through Secretary, Cbdt
Headquarters, North Block (Department Of Revenue),
New Delhi 110001
4. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1,
Aaykar Bhawan Jodhpur- 342001.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gopal Sandu.
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.
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 03:54:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54740-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-23951/2025]
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 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-1) issued under Section 148A(3) of the Income Tax
Act, 1961, as well as the consequential notice dated 06.03.2025
(Annexure-4) 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
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 03:54:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54740-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-23951/2025]
Assessing Officer (FAO), strictly in accordance with law and the
prevailing statutory framework, subject to limitation and other
legal requirements.
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
175-sumer/-
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 03:54:12 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
