Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohammed Aslam vs The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 10 November, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:48064-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21845/2025
Mohammed Aslam S/o Mohammed Umar Modi, Aged About 68
Years, H. No. 61, Opp. Rotary Club, Residency Road, Sardarpura,
Jodhpur - 342001 (Rajasthan). Pan Agepm0033B
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), Central
Circle - 1, Jodhpur Having Its Address At Aayakar
Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur.
2. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -
1, Jodhpur Having Its Address At Aayakar Bhawan, Paota
C Road, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Arora
Mr. Dinesh Bothra
Mr. Lucky Rapurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI
Order
10/11/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is
unhappy with notice dated 24th March 2024 issued under Section
148 and assessment order dated 10th 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
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 05:00:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48064-DB] (2 of 6) [CW-21845/2025]
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
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 05:00:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48064-DB] (3 of 6) [CW-21845/2025]
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
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 05:00:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48064-DB] (4 of 6) [CW-21845/2025]
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 06 th 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 29 th
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 29 th 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 31 st 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.
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 05:00:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48064-DB] (5 of 6) [CW-21845/2025]
11. The Revenue filed an SLP against another order passed by
Telangana High Court based on the aforesaid Order in
Venkataramana Reddy Patloola (supra). The said SLP came to
be dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 16 th
July 2025 in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 33956/2025 stating the
following-
1. "Delay condoned.
2. Exemption Application is allowed.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners- Revenue and having gone through the
materials on record, we find no good reason to interfere
with the impugned order passed by the High Court.
3. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
4. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed
of."
12. Thus the judgment passed by the Gujarat High Court is not
based on the reading of notification dated 29 th 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.
13. In these circumstances, notice dated 24th March 2024 issued
under Section 148 and assessment order dated 10 th March, 2025
passed under Section 147 of the Act along with consequential
proceedings are liable to be quashed and set aside.
14. 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
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 05:00:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48064-DB] (6 of 6) [CW-21845/2025]
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.
15. 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.
16. Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties,
we quash and set aside notice dated 24 th March 2024 issued
under Section 148 and assessment order dated 10 th March, 2025
passed under Section 147 of the Act along with consequential
proceedings, with liberty as prayed.
17. In view of above, learned counsel for the petitioner
undertakes to apply within two weeks to withdraw the appeal
already filed.
18. Undertaking accepted.
19. Petition disposed.
20. Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed.
(ANUROOP SINGHI),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
129-Sudheer/-
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 05:00:14 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
