Sumit Agarwal Vs ACIT (Rajasthan High Court)
The Rajasthan High Court considered a petition challenging a notice dated 26 March 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and the assessment order dated 12 March 2025 issued under Section 147. The petitioner argued that one of the key grounds was that the notice had been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) rather than by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), in violation of the faceless reassessment scheme introduced under Section 151A. Counsel relied on earlier decisions of the Rajasthan High Court, including Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, which followed the Bombay High Court’s ruling in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., and held that a notice issued by the JAO instead of the FAO was invalid. Therefore, any assessment order passed pursuant to such a notice would also be invalid.
The Revenue relied on a Gujarat High Court decision in Talati and Talati LLP concerning the validity of notices issued under Section 148 and proceedings under Section 153A. In that case, the Gujarat High Court did not interfere with the notice and directed the assessee to respond. The Rajasthan High Court examined that decision and found the facts to be entirely different from those in the present case. The Gujarat High Court had held that the e-assessment scheme notified on 29 March 2022 did not apply where notices under Section 148 were issued in cases involving search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A. Reliance had been placed on Explanation 2 to Section 148, with the view that automated allocation under the faceless regime could not apply in search-related matters because issuing such notices required human application of mind.
