MANI RAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JODHPUR-1 (PCIT JODHPUR-1)
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal held that the notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 and the assessment order dated March 12, 2025, passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were liable to be quashed and set aside. The Court found the facts of the Gujarat High Court case in Talati and Talati LLP to be entirely different from the present case. The Court noted that the Gujarat High Court's decision was based on a reading of Explanation 2 to Section 148 and an understanding that pre-requisites for issuing a notice under Section 148 in search cases could not be met by the FAO. The Rajasthan High Court disagreed with this view. The Court also considered the Bombay High Court's decision in Abhin Anilkumar Shah, which held that certain CBDT orders creating exceptions for assessment proceedings did not alter the faceless scheme. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's dismissal of an SLP against a Telangana High Court order based on Venkataramana Reddy Patloola supported the petitioner's stance. The revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The petitioner was permitted to withdraw other grounds not pressed. The petition was disposed of with the notice and assessment order quashed.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Mani Ram, challenged a notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 and an assessment order dated March 12, 2025, passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), rendering it invalid. The petitioner relied on decisions from the Rajasthan High Court in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, which in turn followed a Bombay High Court ruling in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The revenue cited a Gujarat High Court judgment in Talati and Talati LLP, which took a different view. The Rajasthan High Court noted that the Gujarat High Court's decision was based on a different factual matrix and understanding of certain provisions.
What were the issues?
1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is invalid, thereby making any consequent assessment order bad in law? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 and the faceless assessment scheme). Assessee's Contention: The notice issued by the JAO is invalid, following the Rajasthan High Court's decisions in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, which relied on the Bombay High Court's ruling in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. An assessment order based on an invalid notice is also bad in law. Revenue's Contention: The revenue relied on the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Talati and Talati LLP, which did not interfere with a similar notice and directed the assessee to file a reply. The Gujarat High Court considered that the e-assessment scheme notification dated March 29, 2022, did not cover cases where notice under Section 148 was issued by the JAO, especially in matters of search and seizure under Section 132, and that Explanation 2 to Section 148 required human application of mind not fulfillable by an algorithm.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148,Section 147,Section 153A,Section 132,Section 132A,Section 151A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 25/11/2025
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’).
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) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:16:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50861-DB] (2 of 6) [CW-22890/2025] Assessing Officer (FAO). He also submits that a co-ordinate Bench 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 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.
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) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:16:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50861-DB] (3 of 6) [CW-22890/2025]
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.
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 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) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:16:53 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.
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.
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) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:16:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50861-DB] (5 of 6) [CW-22890/2025] 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 16th July 2025 in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 33956/2025 stating the following- 1. “Delay condoned.
Exemption Application is allowed.
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.
The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.”
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.
In these circumstances, notice dated 24th March 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act and assessment order dated 12th March 2025 passed under Section 147 of the Act are liable to be quashed and set aside.
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) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:16:53 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.
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 24th March 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act and assessment order dated 12th March 2025 passed under Section 147 of the Act with liberty as prayed.
In view of above, Mr. Mehta undertakes to apply within two weeks to withdraw the appeal already filed.
Undertaking accepted.
Petition disposed.
Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 4-Rashi/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 04:08:51 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:16:53 PM)
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sahoo Supply Agency,Balasore vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs,New DelhiOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Sahoo Supply Agency vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And CustomsOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD., Cuttack vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026