Fruitful Buildcon Private Limited, Through Its Director Shri Jugal Kishore Garg V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Jaipur

CW/20318/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Fruitful Buildcon Private Limited, represented by its director Shri Jugal Kishore Garg, challenging a notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Jaipur. The core issue was the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the mandated Faceless Assessing Officer. The respondents acknowledged that the issue was covered by previous judgments which invalidated such notices. The court's decision was influenced by the legal precedents set in similar cases, emphasizing the jurisdictional authority of the Faceless Assessing Officer over the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in issuing notices under the specified section.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 832935 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-01-2026
• 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; TANUSHKA SAXENA
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHAN CHATTER
• Keywords: Faceless Assessing Officer; Income Tax; Invalid notices; Jurisdiction
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"[2026:RJ-JP:3504-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1431/2026 Fruitful Buildcon Private Limited, Through Its Director Shri Jugal Kishore Garg, Aged About 66 Years, Son Of Late Shri Inder Lal Agarwal, R/o 8A, Govindi House, Kanota Bagh, Takteshahi Road, Jln Marg, Jaipur-302004 ----Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Jaipur Having Its Address At 4Th Floor, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohan Chatter for Mr. S.L. Podar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Ms. Tanushka Saxena HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA Order 27/01/2026 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 notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, are invalid. Printed from counselvise.com [2026:RJ-JP:3504-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-1431/2026] 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 01.03.2025 (Annexure-2) 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 Printed from counselvise.com [2026:RJ-JP:3504-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-1431/2026] 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. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 103-Nirmala/Shivani Printed from counselvise.com "