PUKHRAJ KUNDANMAL SHAH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/23682/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:52536-DB05 December 2025Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the mandate of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be strictly followed. It was found that Jurisdictional Assessing Officers (JAOs) do not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, as doing so weakens Section 151A and may lead to its diminished activation. The court emphasized that for assessment and reassessment under Sections 147, 148, and 148A, adherence to the algorithm-based random assessing system, as envisaged by the CBDT Notification dated March 29, 2022, and Section 151A, is mandatory. Notices issued by JAOs in contravention of this scheme were deemed to be against the legislative purpose and therefore liable to be quashed. The court quashed the notice dated March 17, 2025, issued by the JAO and all consequential orders. Liberty was granted to the respondents to issue fresh notices in compliance with the CBDT Notification, keeping the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as the assessing officer. The time spent during the litigation was to be excluded for computing the limitation for issuing fresh notices, if required. The judgment followed the principles laid down in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11787/2024 and Civil Writ Petition No. 21509/2023.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pukhraj Kundanmal Shah, through its partner Sawai Singh Shah, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 17, 2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential orders. The respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, C-1, Jodhpur. The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur noted that the issue had been finally adjudicated by a coordinate bench in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11787/2024 (Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr.) decided on March 19, 2025. The court also referred to an order passed by one of its judges in Civil Writ Petition No. 21509/2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.) decided on July 29, 2024.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) are valid, considering the scheme of automated allocation based on algorithms and random assignment of assessing officers as envisaged by Section 151A of the Act and CBDT Notification dated March 29, 2022? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The assessee implicitly challenges the jurisdiction of the JAO to issue such notices, relying on the principle that such notices should adhere to the faceless assessment regime and algorithm-based allocation. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through preliminary objections raised by its counsel, likely defends the validity of the notices issued by the JAO, arguing for the continued applicability of traditional assessment procedures or challenging the interpretation of the faceless assessment scheme. 2. Whether the mandate of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, requires strict adherence to algorithm-based random assessing systems for assessment and reassessment proceedings under Sections 147, 148, and 148A, and whether notices issued by JAOs in contravention thereof are liable to be quashed? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee relies on the coordinate bench's finding that the mandate of Section 151A must be strictly followed and that JAOs lack jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148, as it undermines the faceless regime and legislative intent. Revenue's Contention: The revenue likely argues that the circulars or instructions by the Board do not override statutory provisions and that the JAO's actions are permissible, potentially citing powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 151A,Section 147,Section 148A,Section 119,Section 120,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JD:52536-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23682/2025 Pukhraj Kundanmal Shah, Through Its Partner Sawai Singh Shah, S/o Shri Pukhraj Shah, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of C-37, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur 3420031, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, C-1, Jodhpur, Raj. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Arora For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K Bissa HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 05/12/2025 1. Issue notice. 2. Mr. K.K Bissa, learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice and has raised preliminary objections. 3. The issue raised in the present writ petition stands finally adjudicated by a Co-ordiante Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11787/2024: Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. Vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr. and other connected writ petitions decided on 19.03.2025, wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench has held as under: “18. This Court further observes that any jurisdictional error in the notices has to be cured and thus, the notices which have been issued for assessment and reassessment and which are the impugned notices under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, do not withstand the broader scheme of law, which requires automated allocation based on algorithm and random assignment of the assessing officer. Part 2(i)(a) of the Scheme clear demarcates as to how the assessment and reassessment has to take place. 19. This Court is conscious of the fact that any reform or change for betterment is always (Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 12:15:47 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:34:41 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:52536-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-23682/2025] resisted by the persons in control, particularly those who do not visualize the pragmatic and progressive paths which require vision and wisdom. The legislature in its own vision and wisdom, for enhancing the efficiency of the taxation system by making it more transparent and impartial, decided to have infused technology in the shape of an algorithm for randomised allocations of cases, by using suitable technological tools, including artificial intelligence and machine learning, with a view to optimise the use of resources. The common tendency to cling to control and old methods has to be dealt with firmly and ways & means including loopholes to fall back upon the old regime of control is an imminent danger which has to be thwarted off. The legislative intention, legislative vision and legislative wisdom has to be given full meaning in terms of technology and progressiveness, and thus, once an effective and strong step has been taken towards faceless regime, then maintaining the strings of local control to the prejudice of a common man would not only undermine the legislative wisdom but the gains in terms of such a progressive and pragmatic step would stand to reduce. Once the gear of progress has been applied in a democratic set up, the same has to be strongly supported and sustained. The CBDT Circular read with Section 151A of the Act of 1961 has to be given full meaning and any ways & means to defeat the technology or to manually try to control the same would go against the legislative purpose. 20. Thus, this Court holds that the mandate of Section 151A of the Act of 1961 has to be strictly followed as there cannot be a way out of doing the same. This Court also holds that the JAO shall not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, as it would not only render Section 151A weak, but may also lead to its diminishing activation. For the purpose of assessment and reassessment under Sections 147, 148 & 148A and in light of the sanction under Section 151A, adherence has to be made to algorithm based random assessing system, and therefore, the impugned notices deserve to be quashed. 21. Consequently, the present writ petitions are allowed. Accordingly, the impugned Notices are quashed and set aside, as far as the jurisdiction of JAOs for the purpose of Sections 148 & 148A of the Act of 1961 to issue the same is concerned. The question raised herein stands answered in the terms indicated above, with liberty to the respondents to issue fresh notices in compliance of the CBDT Notification dated (Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 12:15:47 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:34:41 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:52536-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-23682/2025] 29.03.2022, by keeping the FAO as assessing officer. 21.1 However, the time spent during the pendency of the present litigation in the Court, shall be excluded for the purpose of computing limitation for issuance of fresh notices, in case, need arises. 21.2 All pending applications stand disposed of.” 4. One of us (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma) while sitting at Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, passed an order in Civil Writ Petition No.21509/2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.), decided on 29.07.2024 wherein it was held as under:- “16. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench and hold that such circular or instructions by the Board could not have been issued to override statutory provisions or to make them otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments having financial implications are required to be followed strictly and mandatorily. By exercising the powers contained in Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961 as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), the authorities cannot be allowed to usurp the legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience causing hardship to the assessees. It also leaves confusion in the minds of the taxpayers. In the opinion of this Court, instructions and circulars can be issued only for the purpose of supplementing the statutory provisions and for their implementation. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no occasion to distinguish or take a different view as suggested by the learned counsel for the revenue from what has already been held by the Coordinate Bench. 18. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Co- ordinate Bench (supra) notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and the proceedings

initiated

thereafter

without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, have been found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961 and accordingly notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024 and 30.03.2023 and order dated 30.03.2023, are set aside for want of jurisdiction. 19. The respondents-revenue would be, however at liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. (Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 12:15:47 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:34:41 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:52536-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-23682/2025] 20. All the writ petitions are allowed. The interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the present order.” 5. Keeping in view above, the present writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case. 6. The notice dated 17.03.2025 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (J.A.O.) and all the consequential orders passed there on the said basis stands quashed and set aside. 7. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACJ 3-divyaP/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 12:15:47 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:34:41 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 →