[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rajvinder Kour vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 12 January, 2026

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2026:RJ-JD:1578-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 176/2026

Rajvinder Kour W/o Shri Sukha Singh, Aged About 51 Years, R/o
3    Ksd    Sukhchainpura,           Ganganagar,            Vijainagar,     335051,
Rajasthan.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) Jaipur,
         (Pcit Jaipur), 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Bhawani Singh
         Road, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur 302005
2.       Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (National
         Faceless Assessment Centre), 4Th Floor, Mayur Bhawan,
         Connaught Circle, New Delhi - 110001
3.       Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Through The Secretary,
         Cbdt    Headquarter,           North       Block-         (Department    Of
         Revenue), New Delhi - 110001.
4.       Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle,
         Room No. 72, Aayakar Bhawan, Rani Road, Bikaner -
         334001.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Sharad Kothari with
                                  Mr. Kalpit Shishodia
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. K.K. Bissa



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

12/01/2026

1. Mr. Sharad Kothari submits that petitioner is unhappy with

notice dated 26th March 2025 issued under Section 148 of the

Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') for the assessment year

2022-23.

(Uploaded on 13/01/2026 at 03:34:36 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1578-DB] (2 of 6) [CW-176/2026]

2. Mr. Sharad 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 & Others1 and Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The

Income Tax Officer & Another2 following judgment of Bombay

High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 15(1)(2) 3 has held that

such a notice issued by JAO will be invalid.

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),

Ahmedabad4 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 13/01/2026 at 03:34:36 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1578-DB] (3 of 6) [CW-176/2026]

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

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. 5

where the orders dated 31st March 2021 and 06th September 2021

issued by the CBDT creating exception for the assessment

(Uploaded on 13/01/2026 at 03:34:36 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1578-DB] (4 of 6) [CW-176/2026]

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 06 th September

2021 is to modify the order dated 31 st 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 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 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.6.

(Uploaded on 13/01/2026 at 03:34:36 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1578-DB] (5 of 6) [CW-176/2026]

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, impugned notice dated 26th March

2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act is liable to be quashed

and set aside.