JUGAL KISHORE GARG SON OF LATE SHRI INDER LAL AGARWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Issue notice to the respondent.

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

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:

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

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 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.

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.

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.”

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:

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 2014-2015) was issued on 26.03.2024 and the assessment order was passed on 27.03.2025 and the same has been challenged before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 24.09.2025 and

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

The present civil writ petition stands disposed of.

Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 3-Nirmala/Shivani