Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mani Ram vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 25 November, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:50861-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22890/2025
Mani Ram S/o Shri Luna Ram, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Sanjay
Colony, Ward No. 21, Rawatsar, Hanumangarh, 335524,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Jodhpur-1 (Pcit
Jodhpur-1), Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan, 342010.
2. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, (National
Faceless Assessment Centre) 4Th Floor, Mayur Bhawan,
Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110001.
3. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Through Secretary Cbdt
Headquarters, North Block (Department Of Revenue),
New Delhi - 110001.
4. Income Tax Officer, Ward Nohar, Near Collectorate Chowk,
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan, 335512.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pranjul Mehta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Bhandari for Mr. K.K. Bissa
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
25/11/2025
1. Mr. Mehta submits that petitioner is unhappy with notice
dated 24th March 2024 issued under Section 148 and assessment
order dated 12th March 2025 passed under Section 147 of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').
2. Mr. Mehta 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
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 04:08:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50861-DB] (2 of 6) [CW-22890/2025]
Assessing Officer (FAO). He also submits that a co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in the case of Shree Cement Limited vs. Assistant
Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others decided in D.B. Writ
Petition No.10540/2024 dated 05.08.2025 and in the case of
Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another
reported in (2025) SCC OnLine Raj3386 following judgment of
Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs.
Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 15(1)(2);
(2024) 162 taxman.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 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; MANU/GJ/2382/2024 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. We find 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.
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 04:08:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50861-DB] (3 of 6) [CW-22890/2025]
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.;
[2024] 468ITR350 (Bom) where the orders dated 31st March 2021
and 06th September 2021 issued by the CBDT creating exception
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 04:08:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50861-DB] (4 of 6) [CW-22890/2025]
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
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 04:08:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50861-DB] (5 of 6) [CW-22890/2025]
ReddyPatloola Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle1(1) and Ors.; [2024] 468ITR181.
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 of the Act and assessment order dated 12 th
March 2025 passed under Section 147 of the Act 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
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 04:08:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50861-DB] (6 of 6) [CW-22890/2025]
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.
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 of the Act and assessment order dated 12 th March
2025 passed under Section 147 of the Act with liberty as prayed.
17. In view of above, Mr. Mehta 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.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
4-Rashi/-
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 04:08:51 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
