ASHOK GUPTA S/O RAM NIWAS GUPTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Issue notice to respondent.

Ms. Tanushka Saxena, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent.

Both the learned counsel clearly state that the issue raised in the present writ petition stands finally adjudicated by a Co-ordinate 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:

This Court is conscious of the fact that any reform or change for betterment is always resisted by the per- sons in control, particularly those who do not visualize the pragmatic and progressive paths which require vi- sion and wi om. The legislature in its own vision and wi om, 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 intelli- gence 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 wi om has to be given full mean- ing 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 wi om 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 Cir- cular 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.

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 juris- diction 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 Sec- tions 147, 148 & 148A and in light of the sanction un- der Section 151A, adherence has to be made to algo- rithm based random assessing system, and therefore, the impugned notices deserve to be quashed.

Consequently, the present writ petitions are al- lowed. Accordingly, the impugned Notices are quashed and set aside, as far as the juri iction of JAOs for the [2026:RJ-JP:4637-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-18934/2025] 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 29.03.2022, by keeping the FAO as assessing officer. 21.1 How- ever, 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.

2 All pending applications stand disposed of.”

One of us (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma) while sitting at Punjab and Haryana High Court passed an order in CWP No.21509/2023 titled as 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 instruc- tions by the Board could not have been issued to over- ride statutory provisions or to make them otiose or ob- solete. Legislative enactments having financial implica- tions are required to be followed strictly and mandato- rily. 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 confu- sion 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 provi- sions and for their implementation.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no oc- casion to distinguish or take a different view as sug- gested by the learned counsel for the revenue from what has already been held by the Coordinate Bench.

Keeping in view the law laid down by the Co-ordi- nate Bench(supra) notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and the proceedings initi- ated thereafter without conducting the faceless assess- ment 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 juri iction.

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.

All the writ petitions are allowed. The interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the present order.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notices were illegally issued by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer instead of Faceless Assessing Officer.

We note that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for Assessment Year 2016-2017) was issued on 28.03.2023 and the assessment order was passed on 13.03.2024 and the same has been challenged before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 04.04.2024 which is currently pending. The same has been challenged in the present writ petition.

Admittedly, in this case, the final order was passed after the notice was issued by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer. Although the faceless regime has been introduced. In view of the judgments passed in the cases of Jasjit Singh (supra) as well as Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra), the proceedings could not have been initiated by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer nor the faceless regime could have later on passed orders. However, it is noticed that the appeal has been preferred against the final order and, therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court to pass orders resulting in making the appeal redundant.

In these circumstances, we direct the petitioner to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) who will take into consideration and pass appropriate orders accordingly within a period of 15 days following the judgment already rendered by this Court relating to quashing of [2026:RJ-JP:4637-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-18934/2025] the proceedings based on the notice issued by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer.

The present Civil Writ Petition stands disposed of.

All pending applications also stand disposed of. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ KAVISH /2