REKHA JAIN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/22866/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:50242-DB20 November 2025Author: PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, ANUROOP SINGHI6 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

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 24, 2025, passed under Section 147 of the Act, along with consequential proceedings, are liable to be quashed and set aside. The Court found the facts of the Gujarat High Court case (Talati and Talati LLP) to be entirely different from the present case. The Court disagreed with the Gujarat High Court's reasoning, stating it was not based on a comprehensive reading of the notification dated March 29, 2022, along with earlier CBDT orders (March 31, 2021/September 6, 2021), but rather on a limited understanding of Explanation 2 to Section 148 and the perceived inability of the FAO to fulfill pre-requisites in search cases. The Court emphasized that the scheme notified on March 29, 2022, did not include or reference the earlier CBDT orders, and reading them into the scheme would do violence to its language. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rekha Jain, is challenging a notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 and an assessment order dated March 24, 2025, passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention is that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The petitioner relies on judgments from the Rajasthan High Court (Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer) and the Bombay High Court (Hexaware Technologies Ltd.) which held such notices issued by JAO to be invalid. The Revenue argued, citing a Gujarat High Court judgment (Talati and Talati LLP), that in certain search and seizure cases, a JAO could issue such a notice. The Court noted that the Gujarat High Court's reasoning was based on a different understanding of the applicable provisions and notifications.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is invalid, contrary to the faceless assessment regime. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 by the JAO is invalid. They rely on the Rajasthan High Court's decisions in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that notices issued by JAO in such circumstances are bad in law, rendering subsequent assessment orders invalid. Revenue's Contention: The respondent relies on the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Talati and Talati LLP, which did not interfere with a notice issued by the JAO under Section 148, directing the assessee to file a reply. The Revenue also highlighted that the Gujarat High Court distinguished the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case as falling under Explanation 1 to Section 148, not Explanation 2, and that the Gujarat High Court was not aware of the reasoning in Abhin Anilkumar Shah (Bombay High Court) concerning specific CBDT orders creating exceptions for Central Charges.

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
[2025:RJ-JD:50242-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22866/2025 Rekha Jain W/o Shri Chitranjan Jain, Aged About 45 Years, B-32, Moksha, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur - 342001 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Aaykar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur. 2. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur Aaykar Bhawan, Lic Building-2, Bhawani Singh Road, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondents 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 24th March 2024 issued under Section 148 and assessment order dated 24th March, 2025 passed under Section 147 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 (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 06:27:57 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:38:24 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50242-DB] (2 of 6) [CW-22866/2025] vs. The Income Tax Officer & Anr., reported in 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 (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 06:27:57 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:38:24 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50242-DB] (3 of 6) [CW-22866/2025] 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 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. (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 06:27:57 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:38:24 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50242-DB] (4 of 6) [CW-22866/2025]

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 (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 06:27:57 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:38:24 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50242-DB] (5 of 6) [CW-22866/2025] 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.

12.

In these circumstances, notice dated 24th March 2024 issued under Section 148 and assessment order dated 24th March, 2025 passed under Section 147 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 24th March 2024 issued under Section 148 and assessment order dated 24th March, 2025 passed under Section 147 of the Act along with consequential proceedings, with liberty as prayed. (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 06:27:57 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:38:24 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50242-DB] (6 of 6) [CW-22866/2025]

16.

In view of above, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to apply within two weeks to withdraw the appeal already filed.

17.

Undertaking accepted.

18.

Petition disposed.

19.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 70-suraj/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 06:27:57 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:38:24 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 →