[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Jaimala Jain vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 21 January, 2026
Author: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
Bench: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
[2026:RJ-JD:3665-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1561/2026
Smt. Jaimala Jain W/o Jitendra Jain, Aged About 50 Years,
Resident Of A-42, Gavar, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan-
342003.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur
Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur Rajastha302029.
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, Though Secretary, Cbdt
Headquarters, North Block (Department Of Revenue).
New Delhi-110001.
4. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 1,
Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur Rajasthan-
342010.
5. Assistant Commssioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1, Aayakar
Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur Rajasthan-342010.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pranjul Mehta
Mr. Kalpit Shishodia
Mr. Dinesh Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. KK Bissa
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Order
21/01/2026
1. The present writ petition is filed against the impugned notice
dated 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 by Jurisdictional Assessment Officer and the consequent
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 10:21:02 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3665-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-1561/2026]
assessment order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the respondent
Assessing Officer 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
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
12025 SCC OnLine Raj 3386
22024 SCC OnLine Bom 1249
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 10:21:02 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3665-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-1561/2026]
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.
6. In the premise, keeping all rights and contentions, as raised
herein, the impugned notice dated 24.03.2024 issued under
Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2022-2023 as
well as the consequential impugned assessment order dated
20.03.2025 passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act,
1961 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. He also undertakes to apply for withdrawal of the
appeal already filed within a period of two weeks. The undertaking
is accepted.
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 10:21:02 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3665-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-1561/2026]
10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
11. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (ARUN MONGA),J
65-raksha/-
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 10:21:02 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
