[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prem Singh Rao vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 20 January, 2026
Author: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
Bench: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
[2026:RJ-JD:3314-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 619/2026
Prem Singh Rao S/o Shri Mufat Singh Rao, Aged About 47 Years,
R/o House No. 6, Umesh Smiriti, Jhalam Vikas Scheme, Paota B
Road, Jodhpur, 342006, Rajasthan Through His Authorized
Representative Shri Rajesh Bhootra S/o Shri Ram Ratan Bhootra,
Aged About 51 Years, R/o C/o Ram Ratan Bhootra, Near Oswal
Ka Nayati Nohra, Pello Mundra Ki Gali, Jodhpur, 342001,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pcit-Central)
Jaipur, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan,
302005.
2. Principal Chief Commisisoner Of Income Tax (National
Faceless Assessment Centre), 4Th Floor, Mayur Bhawan,
Connaught Circus, New Delhi- 110001.
3. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Cbdt Headquarters North
Block (Department Of Revenue), New Delhi- 110001.
4. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2,
Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan,
342010.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sharad Kothari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. KK Bissa
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Order
20/01/2026
1. The present writ petition is filed against the impugned notice
dated 18.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2022-23.
2. On a court query, learned counsel for the respondents, at the
outset, fairly submits that the controversy in the present writ
(Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 06:43:52 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3314-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-619/2026]
petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in
Sharda Devi Chhajer v. Income Tax Officer & Anr. 1, which, in
turn has followed the similar prior view taken by the Bombay High
Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Assistant
Commissioner of Income-Tax2, wherein it has been held that
notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, instead of
the Faceless Assessing Officer, are without jurisdiction.
3. It is further submitted that the Revenue has preferred a
Special Leave Petition against the judgment in Hexaware
Technologies Ltd. and notice has been issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
4. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondent would
submit that in case this court is inclined to allow the petition,
liberty be granted in favour of the Revenue to revive the
proceedings in the event the judgments in Hexaware
Technologies Ltd. (supra) and Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra)
are set aside or materially modified by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Request seems fair.
5. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by
Division Bench of this court in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra)
and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), holding that
jurisdiction vests exclusively with the Faceless Assessing Officer.
Accordingly, so long the judgments, ibid, continue to hold the
field, issuance of notices by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is
legally unsustainable.
12025 SCC OnLine Raj 3386
22024 SCC OnLine Bom 1249
(Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 06:43:52 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3314-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-619/2026]
6. In the premise, keeping all rights and contentions, as raised
herein, the impugned notice dated 18.03.2025 issued under
Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2022-2023,
along with all proceedings consequential thereto, are quashed for
lack of jurisdiction.
7. Liberty is, however, granted to the respondents-Revenue to
initiate proceedings afresh through the Faceless Assessing Officer,
in accordance with law within the prevailing statutory framework,
subject to compliance of limitation and other legal requirements.
8. It is clarified that in the event the judgments in Hexaware
Technologies Ltd. (supra) and Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra)
are reversed/set aside or materially modified by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the respondent-Revenue shall be at liberty to act
afresh in accordance thereof.
9. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner
states that the other grounds raised herein are not pressed at this
stage and be kept open to be urged, if required, at an appropriate
later stage.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
11. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (ARUN MONGA),J
14-raksha/-
(Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 06:43:52 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
