RISHABH CHAND DAGA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/22850/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:50235-DB20 November 2025Author: PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, ANUROOP SINGHI5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Rajasthan High Court, in the case of Jaskaran Singh Brar (which was followed in the present case), quashed and set aside the notice dated March 26, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that the facts of the Gujarat High Court case in Talati and Talati LLP were 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 notice under Section 148 in search cases could not be met by the FAO. The Rajasthan High Court disagreed with this reasoning. The Court also considered the Bombay High Court's reasoning in Abhin Anilkumar Shah, which dealt with exceptions to the faceless mechanism for assessment proceedings in Central Charges and International Tax Charges. The Court held that the scheme notified on March 29, 2022, did not include or refer to earlier orders creating such exceptions. The Court quashed the notice with liberty to the revenue to revive it if the Apex Court interferes with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The petition was disposed of on these terms.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rishabh Chand Daga, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 26, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), rendering it invalid. This contention was based on previous judgments of the Rajasthan High Court in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, which followed a Bombay High Court ruling in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, argued, citing a Gujarat High Court judgment in Talati and Talati LLP, that such notices in search and seizure cases are valid. The Rajasthan High Court noted that the Gujarat High Court's decision was based on a different factual matrix and understanding of the e-assessment scheme.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is invalid in the context of the faceless assessment regime, particularly when it pertains to cases involving search and seizure under Section 132 of the Act? Assessee's Contention: The notice is invalid because it was issued by the JAO and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The assessee relies on the judgments in Shree Cement Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others and Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another, which in turn relied on Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, citing the Gujarat High Court judgment in Talati and Talati LLP vs. Office of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, argued that a notice issued by the JAO in cases involving search and seizure is valid. The Gujarat High Court did not interfere with the notice but directed the assessee to file a reply.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 153A,Section 132,Section 132A,Section 151A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2025:RJ-JD:50235-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22850/2025 Rishabh Chand Daga S/o Vallabh Chand Daga, Aged About 61 Years, A-332, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur- 342003, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jodhpur Having Its Address At Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Chundawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI

Order 20/11/2025

1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Harsh Vardhan Singh submits that the controversy involved in this matter is squarely covered by the judgment dated 24.09.2025 passed by the co- & Ors.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18987/2025, which is reproduced hereinbelow:

"

1.

All office objections waived.

2.

Mr. 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’).

3.

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 (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 06:27:14 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:34:30 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50235-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-22850/2025] submits that this Court in Shree Cement Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others and Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 15(1)(2) has held High Court has taken cognizance of the contention that pre- (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 06:27:14 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:34:30 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50235-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-22850/2025] 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.

8.

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.

9.

It is pertinent to note that the Gujarat High Court was Tax Officer, International Tax Ward Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai and Ors. 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.

10.

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 (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 06:27:14 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:34:30 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50235-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-22850/2025] expressly provided for and/or something which is kept 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 26th March 2025 passed under Section 148 of the Act is 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 notice dated 26th March 2025 passed under Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.

17.

Petition disposed. (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 06:27:14 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:34:30 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50235-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-22850/2025]

18.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed."

2.

Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to refute the above submission.

3.

In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of on the same terms as laid down in Jaskaran Singh Brar (supra). (ANUROOP SINGHI),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 68-Suraj/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 06:27:14 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:34:30 AM)

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →