Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ashok Jethwani vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 27 November, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:51655-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23230/2025
Ashok Jethwani S/o Shri Kishan Chand Jethwani, Aged About 44
Years, R/o Plot No. 917, 9Th D Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur,
342001, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Jodhpur-1 (Pcit
Jodhpur-1), Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan, 342010
2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur,
Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302029
3. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (National
Faceless Assessment Centre), 4Th Floor, Mayur Bhawan,
Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001
4. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Through Secretary, Cbdt
Headquarters, North Block (Department Of Revenue),
New Delhi - 110001
5. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1, Aayakar
Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, 342010
6. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 1,
Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan,
342010
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sharad Kothari (through VC).
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
27/11/2025
1. Mr. Kothari submits that petitioner is unhappy with notice
dated 27.03.2024 (Annex.2) issued under Section 148 and
assessment order dated 16.03.2025 (Annex.5) passed under
Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').
(Uploaded on 01/12/2025 at 05:17:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51655-DB] (2 of 6) [CW-23230/2025]
2. Mr. Kothari 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 (DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated
05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench) and Sharda Devi Chhajer vs.
The Income Tax Officer & Another (2025 SCCOnLine
Raj3386) following judgment of Bombay High Court in
Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Income-Tax, Circle 15(1)(2) [2024] 162 taxmann.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 (R/Special Civil Application Nos.13198 of 2024
and 13225 of 2024, dated 01.10.2024) 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
(Uploaded on 01/12/2025 at 05:17:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51655-DB] (3 of 6) [CW-23230/2025]
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
(Uploaded on 01/12/2025 at 05:17:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51655-DB] (4 of 6) [CW-23230/2025]
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 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
(Uploaded on 01/12/2025 at 05:17:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51655-DB] (5 of 6) [CW-23230/2025]
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. [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 16th
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 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.
13. In these circumstances, impugned notice dated 27.03.2024
(Annex.2) issued under Section 148 and assessment order dated
(Uploaded on 01/12/2025 at 05:17:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51655-DB] (6 of 6) [CW-23230/2025]
16.03.2025 (Annex.5) 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
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 27.03.2024 (Annex.2) issued under
Section 148 and assessment order dated 16.03.2025 (Annex.5)
passed under Section 147 of the Act with liberty as prayed.
17. In view of above, Mr. Kothari 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
193-Zeeshan
(Uploaded on 01/12/2025 at 05:17:32 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
