Anju Rani V. Union Of India and The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Bharatpur and The Pr. Chief Commissioner Income Tax, Jaipur, Rajasthan

CW/20484/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Anju Rani, the petitioner, challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). The respondents, including the Union of India and various tax officials, acknowledged that the issue was covered by previous judgments which mandated that such notices should be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The court's decision to quash the notice was based on these precedents, emphasizing the legal requirement for the FAO to issue such notices. The court also noted that the Revenue had appealed to the Supreme Court against the relevant judgments, and thus, it reserved the right for the Revenue to reinitiate proceedings if the Supreme Court's decision altered the current legal standing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 832945 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2026
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another [2025 SCC OnLine Raj 3386], Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-15(1)(2) [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bom.)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SIDDHARTH BAPNA; TANUSHA SAXENA; NITIN JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: PANKAJ GHIYA; NIKHIL SHARMA; PARIDHI JAIN; MAYANK VYAS
• Keywords: Faceless Assessing Officer; Income Tax; Invalid notices; Jurisdiction
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"[2026:RJ-JP:3674-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20484/2025 Anju Rani W/o Sh. Mahesh Goyal, A-102, Jai Mata Vaishno Nagar, Gajsinghpura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur- 302006 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Bharatpur. 3. The Pr. Chief Commissioner Income Tax, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Ghiya, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Adv. Ms. Paridhi Jain, Adv. Mr. Mayank Vyas, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna, Adv. with Ms. Tanusha Saxena, Adv. Mr. Nitin Jain, Adv. HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA Order 28/01/2026 1. 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 Printed from counselvise.com [2026:RJ-JP:3674-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-20484/2025] 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 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 26.06.2025 (Annexure-1) 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 Printed from counselvise.com [2026:RJ-JP:3674-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-20484/2025] Assessing Officer (FAO), strictly in accordance with law and the prevailing statutory framework, subject to limitation and other legal requirements. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J Sudheer/HEENA/16 Printed from counselvise.com "