DEVENDRA KUMAR BHANDARI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/22794/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:50240-DB20 November 2025Author: PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, ANUROOP SINGHI5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Rajasthan High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 22, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential proceedings. The Court disagreed with the Gujarat High Court's reasoning in Talati and Talati LLP, finding that the Gujarat High Court's decision was not based on a combined reading of the notification dated March 29, 2022, with earlier CBDT orders (March 31, 2021, and September 06, 2021) that carved out exceptions for certain assessment proceedings. Instead, the Gujarat High Court's decision was based on a simpler reading of Explanation 2 to Section 148 and an understanding that pre-requisites for issuing a Section 148 notice in search cases could not be met by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The Rajasthan High Court found this understanding to be incorrect. The Court noted that the Bombay High Court in Abhin Anilkumar Shah had held that the CBDT orders creating exceptions did not alter the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. 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. Other grounds raised by the petitioner were not pressed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Devendra Kumar Bhandari, challenged a notice dated March 22, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a 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 followed a Bombay High Court ruling in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The respondent revenue argued, citing a Gujarat High Court judgment in Talati and Talati LLP, that such notices could be valid, particularly in search and seizure cases. The Rajasthan High Court noted factual differences between the present case and the Gujarat High Court's decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is invalid, particularly in light of the Faceless Assessment Scheme notified on March 29, 2022? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The notice is invalid because it was issued by the JAO, not the FAO. Reliance was placed on Shree Cement Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others and Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Anr., which followed Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 15(1)(2) (Bombay High Court), holding such notices invalid. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued, citing Talati and Talati LLP vs. Office of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Gujarat High Court), that the notice could be valid, especially in cases involving search and seizure under Section 132. The Gujarat High Court had not interfered with a similar notice and directed the assessee to 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:50240-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22794/2025 Devendra Kumar Bhandari S/o Ganpat Mal Bhandari, Aged About 60 Years, 42 Arihant Tower, 5Th A Road Sardarpura, Jodhpur. 342003. ----Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1, Aaykar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anjay Kothari For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa with Mr. G.S. Chouhan HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI

Order 20/11/2025

1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is unhappy with notice dated 22nd March 2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).

2.

Income-Tax & Others (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025, at Jaipur Bench) and Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Anr., reported in 2025 (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 06:26:53 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:38:16 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50240-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-22794/2025] of Income-Tax, Circle 15(1)(2), reported in (2024) 162 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.

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 (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 06:26:53 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:38:16 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50240-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-22794/2025] 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 International Tax Ward Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai and Ors. reported in (2024) 468 ITR 350 (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 (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 06:26:53 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:38:16 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50240-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-22794/2025] 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 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 (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 06:26:53 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:38:16 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50240-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-22794/2025] Section 148 in search cases cannot be met by the FAO. With due respect, we do not agree.

12.

In these circumstances, notice dated 22nd March 2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act along with consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed and set aside.

13.

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.

14.

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.

15.

Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 22nd March 2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act along with consequential proceedings, with liberty as prayed.

16.

Petition disposed.

17.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 67-suraj/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 06:26:53 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:38:16 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 →