Case Law Details
Jagtamba Timber Mart Vs DCIT (Rajasthan High Court)
The petitioner challenged a notice dated 24 March 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the assessment order dated 21 March 2025 passed under Section 147. One of the central grounds raised was that the notice had been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which the petitioner argued made the notice invalid under the faceless reassessment scheme.
The petitioner relied on decisions of this Court in Shree Cement Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Others and Sharda Devi Chhajer v. The Income Tax Officer & Anr., both of which followed the Bombay High Court judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. These judgments held that a Section 148 notice issued by a JAO instead of an FAO is invalid, and any assessment order based on such a notice is also invalid.
In response, counsel for the Revenue referred to a Gujarat High Court decision in Talati and Talati LLP v. Office of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, where the Court did not interfere with a notice issued under Section 148 and directed the assessee to file a reply. The Rajasthan High Court examined this precedent and concluded that the facts in Talati and Talati LLP were materially different from those in the present case.
The Gujarat High Court had held in Talati and Talati LLP that the e-assessment scheme notified on 29 March 2022 did not apply where the notice under Section 148 was issued by a JAO based on information obtained during search and seizure proceedings under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A. That Court relied on Explanation 2 to Section 148 to conclude that automated allocation through algorithms, artificial intelligence, or machine learning—central to the scheme—could not apply in such cases.
The Rajasthan High Court noted that the Gujarat High Court’s reasoning assumed that the FAO does not draw the satisfaction note required before issuing a Section 148 notice in search-related cases. The Gujarat High Court accepted the contention that human application of mind, as required under Explanation 2, could not be substituted by the algorithm-driven faceless system.
Furthermore, the Gujarat High Court distinguished the Bombay High Court’s judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. on the ground that Hexaware involved Explanation 1 to Section 148 and did not pertain to search-related situations covered under Explanation 2.
The Rajasthan High Court observed that the Gujarat High Court had not been informed of the detailed reasoning adopted by the Bombay High Court in Abhin Anilkumar Shah v. Income Tax Officer, International Tax Ward Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai. In that case, the Court analysed two CBDT orders dated 31 March 2021 and 6 September 2021, which carved out exceptions only for assessment proceedings undertaken by International Taxation charges and Central Charges. The Bombay High Court clarified that these exceptions did not extend to the faceless reassessment scheme notified under Section 151A on 29 March 2022, and that it would be inappropriate to read into the scheme any exceptions not expressly included. It held that the notification could not incorporate the CBDT orders by implication.
The Rajasthan High Court also noted that the Bombay High Court had relied on the Telangana High Court decision in Venkataramana Reddy Patloola v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1). It emphasised that the Gujarat High Court judgment was based on a narrow reading of Explanation 2 to Section 148 and an assumption about the inability of the FAO to comply with the pre-conditions for issuing notices in search cases, rather than a combined reading of the notification dated 29 March 2022 with the CBDT orders.
Disagreeing with the Gujarat High Court’s reasoning, the Rajasthan High Court held that the notice dated 24 March 2024 issued under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment order dated 21 March 2025, along with all consequential proceedings, were liable to be quashed.
During the hearing, counsel for the Revenue pointed out that a Special Leave Petition had been filed against Hexaware Technologies Ltd., and the Supreme Court had issued notice. He requested that in case the Supreme Court later interferes with Hexaware or related judgments followed in the present case, the Revenue should have the liberty to revive the Section 148 notice. The Court accepted this submission.
Counsel for the petitioner stated that other grounds raised in the petition were not being pressed and may be taken up at an appropriate stage later if required. The Court therefore quashed the Section 148 notice, the assessment order under Section 147, and all consequential proceedings, while granting the Revenue liberty to revive the notice depending on the outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings.
The petitioner undertook to withdraw the pending appeal within two weeks, which the Court accepted. The petition and all pending applications were accordingly disposed of.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is unhappy with notice dated 24th March 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and assessment order dated 21th March 2025 passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).
2. Learned counsel further submits that apart from various grounds taken in the petition, one of the grounds is that notice has been issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). He also submits that this Court in Shree Cement Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025, at Jaipur Bench) and Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Anr., reported in 2025 SCCOnLine Raj3386, following judgment of Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 15(1)(2), reported in (2024) 162 tazmann.com 225 (Bombay), has held that such a notice issued by JAO will be invalid. Therefore any assessment order passed on an invalid notice will also be bad in law.
3. Mr. Bissa, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is a Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of Talati and Talati LLP vs. Office of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, wherein Court considered validity of show cause notice issued under Section 148 of the Act and the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act. He further submits that Gujarat High Court did not interfere with notice but directed assessee to file reply to notice.
4. This Court finds that facts of the Gujarat High Court case in Talati and Talati LLP (supra) are entirely different from the facts of present case.
In Talati and Talati LLP (supra), Gujarat High Court has held that notification dated 29th March 2022 (prescribing e-assessment scheme) does not cover a case where notice under Section 148 is issued by the JAO, the information received by him in the matter of search and seizure under Section 132 of the Act, 1961, or requisitioned under Section 132A.
5. The Gujarat High Court has relied on Explanation 2 to Section 148 (as it existed at the relevant time) to approve the contention of the Revenue that the concept of automated allocation, i.e. application of algorithm for randomized allocation of cases by using suitable technological tools including Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, as defined in Clause 2(1)(b) of the Scheme dated 29th March 2022, cannot be applied in a case of search and seizure under Section 132.
6. While upholding the said contention the Gujarat High Court was perhaps under an understanding that the FAO does not draw a satisfaction note before proceeding to issue a notice under Section 148 in search cases. The Gujarat High Court has taken cognizance of the contention that pre-requisite conditions before issuance of notice under Section 148, as provided in Explanation 2 of Section 148 would require human application of mind and cannot be fulfilled by algorithm under the Faceless Regime.
7. The decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) has been distinguished as having been rendered in a case, which falls within the arena of Explanation 1 to Section 148 and not where Explanation 2 to Section 148 of the Income Tax Act’ 1961, would be attracted.
8. It is pertinent to note that the Gujarat High Court was not made aware of the reasoning adopted by Bombay High Court in the case of Abhin Anilkumar Shah vs. Income Tax Officer, International Tax Ward Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai and Ors. reported in (2024) 468 ITR 350 (Bom) where the orders dated 31st March 2021 and 06th September 2021 issued by the CBDT creating exception for the assessment proceedings undertaken by the International taxation charges/Central Charges were subject matter of deliberation.
9. In Abhin Anilkumar Shah (supra) the Court held that said orders dated 31st March 2021 and 06th September 2021 issued by the CBDT only carve out exception in relation to the assessment proceedings. What has been done by order dated 06th September 2021 is to modify the order dated 31st March 2021 to the extent of what is set out in paragraph 3 thereof, namely, that in addition to such exceptions to the applicability of the faceless mechanism to assessment orders in relation to Central Charges and International Tax Charges, an additional exception was added, namely, to the assessment order in cases where pendency could not be created on ITBA because of technical reasons or cases not having a PAN, as the case may be. Thus, the scheme as framed under section 151A and notified under the notification dated 29th March 2022 does not include the applicability, inclusion or even reference to the orders dated 31st March 2021 and 06th September 2021. It was further held that it would be doing violence to the language of the notification/scheme dated 29th March 2022 to read into such notification what has not been expressly provided for and/or something which is kept outside the purview of the said notification, namely, the orders dated 31st March 2021 and 06th September 2021. It would be uncalled for to read into the scheme dated 29th March 2022, something which is not included.
10. The Bombay High Court also relied upon the order passed by the Telangana High Court in the case of Venkataramana Reddy Patloola Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1) and Ors. reported in (2024)468 ITR 181.
11. Thus, the judgment passed by the Gujarat High Court is not based on the reading of notification dated 29th March 2022 along with orders dated 31st March 2021/ 06th September 2021 but is based on the simple reading of Explanation 2 to Section 148 along with understanding that the pre-requisites for issuing notice under Section 148 in search cases cannot be met by the FAO. With due respect, we do not agree.
12. In these circumstances, notice dated 24th March 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act and assessment order dated 21th March 2025 passed under Section 147 of the Act along with consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed and set aside.
13. At this stage, Mr. Bissa submits that in judgment of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Revenue has preferred a Special Leave Petition and notice has been issued. Counsel states that in view of the law as it stands today, Court may grant the prayer of petitioner but in case the Apex Court interferes with judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra) or Shree Cement Limited (supra), then Revenue should be given liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act.
14. 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.
15. Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 24th March 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act and assessment order dated 21th March 2025 passed under Section 147 of the Act along with consequential proceedings, with liberty as prayed.
16. In view of above, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to apply within two weeks to withdraw the appeal already filed.
17. Undertaking accepted.
18. Petition disposed.
19. Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed.
Author Bio
