HARI MOHAN DANGAYACH, SON OF SHRI RAM BILAS DANGAYACH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
CW/20803/2025HC RajasthanRJHC02107697202528 January 20265 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the issue of notices by the JAO under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent passing of orders under the faceless regime were contrary to the Act, as per the judgments in Sharda Devi Chhajer and Jasjit Singh. These precedents held that notices issued by JAOs for assessment and reassessment under Section 148, without adherence to the algorithm-based random assessing system mandated by Section 151A, are liable to be quashed. However, since the petitioner had already preferred an appeal against the final assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), making the appeal redundant by quashing the proceedings would not be appropriate. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner was directed to take into consideration the existing judgments and pass appropriate orders within 15 days.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Hari Mohan Dangayach, is challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-18. A notice was issued on March 20, 2024, and an assessment order was passed on February 21, 2025. This assessment order has been challenged before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and is currently pending. The petitioner argues that the notices were illegally issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent is the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4, Jaipur. The High Court noted that the final order was passed after the notice was issued by the JAO, despite the introduction of the faceless regime.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) are invalid in light of the faceless assessment regime and Section 151A of the Act, which mandates algorithm-based random allocation of cases? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The notices were illegally issued by the JAO instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer, rendering the proceedings invalid. The petitioner relies on the judgments in Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. Vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr. and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. Revenue's contention: Not explicitly recorded in the judgment. However, the revenue's counsel accepted notice and participated in the proceedings.

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

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2026:RJ-JP:3681-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20803/2025 Hari Mohan Dangayach, Son Of Shri Ram Bilas Dangayach, Aged About 76 Years, Resident Of 2, Govind Marg, Jaipur 302004 ----Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4, Jaipur, Having Its Address At Room No. 416, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka, Adv. with Ms. Satvika Jha, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna, Adv. with Ms. Tanusha Saxena, Adv. HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

Order 28/01/2026

1.

Issue notice to the respondent.

2.

Mr. Siddharth Bapna, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

3.

Learned counsel for both the parties clearly state that the issue raised in the present writ petition stands finally adjudicated in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11787/2024: Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. Vs The In come 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 juri ictional error in the notices has to be cured and thus, the notices

[2026:RJ-JP:3681-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-20803/2025] which have been issued for assessment and re assessment 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 resisted by the per sons in control, particularly those who do not visualize the pragmatic and progressive paths which require vision 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 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 wi om 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 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 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

[2026:RJ-JP:3681-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-20803/2025] holds that the JAO shall not have the juri iction 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 al lowed. Accordingly, the impugned Notices are quashed and set aside, as far as the juri iction 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 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.

21.

2 All pending applications stand disposed of.”

4.

In the case of Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. (CWP No.21509/2023) decided on 29.07.2024, the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court 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 over ride statutory provisions or to make them otiose or ob solete. 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

[2026:RJ-JP:3681-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-20803/2025] 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.

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 juri iction.

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.

20.

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

5.

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

6.

We note that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for Assessment Year 2017-18) was issued on 20.03.2024 and the assessment order was passed on 21.02.2025 and the same has been challenged before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which is currently pending. The same has been challenged in the present writ petition.

[2026:RJ-JP:3681-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-20803/2025]

7.

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.

8.

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 the proceedings based on the notice issued by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer.

9.

The present civil writ petition stands disposed of.

10.

Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J Sudheer/HEENA/03

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →