MANOJ KALA S/O SH. MAHENDRA PRAKASH KALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/19931/2025HC RajasthanRJHC02110561202518 December 2025Author: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court acknowledged that the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were contrary to the provisions of the Act and the faceless assessment regime, as held in previous judgments like *Sharda Devi Chhajer* and *Jasjit Singh*. These precedents established that JAOs lack the jurisdiction to issue such notices, and adherence to the algorithm-based random assessing system mandated by Section 151A is crucial. However, since a final assessment order had been passed and an appeal was already pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Court deemed it inappropriate to pass an order that would render the pending appeal redundant. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner was instructed to consider this application and pass appropriate orders within 15 days, taking into account the Court's prior judgments quashing proceedings based on notices issued by JAOs. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manoj Kala, challenged notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent assessment order. The primary contention was that these notices were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer, violating the faceless regime introduced by the Income Tax Department. The assessment year in question is 2012-2013. A notice under Section 148 was issued on 28.03.2023, and an assessment order was passed on 07.03.2024. The petitioner had already filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 06.04.2024, which was pending. The writ petition was filed challenging the validity of the proceedings initiated by the JAO.

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, as per the scheme for automated allocation of cases. Assessee's Contention: The notices were illegally issued by the JAO instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer, rendering the proceedings invalid. Revenue's Contention: Not explicitly recorded in the judgment, but impliedly, the revenue would likely defend the validity of the notices and the assessment proceedings. 2. Whether the Court should quash the proceedings when a final order has been passed and an appeal is pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), given the established precedent on the invalidity of notices issued by JAOs in faceless assessment proceedings. Assessee's Contention: The proceedings initiated by the JAO are bad in law and should be quashed. Revenue's Contention: Not explicitly recorded in the judgment.

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
[2025:RJ-JP:51131-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19931/2025 Manoj Kala S/o Sh. Mahendra Prakash Kala, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of 1334, Sangakon Ka Rasta, Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur, Rajasthan -302003. ----Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4, Jaipur, Central Circle - 4, Jaipur, Having Its Address At 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Kedawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Sarvesh Jain, Ms. Tanushka Saxena & Ms. Chinki Choudhary HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

Order 18/12/2025

1.

Issue notice to respondent.

2.

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

3.

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:

“18. This Court further observes that any juri ictional error in the notices has to be cured and thus, the

[2025:RJ-JP:51131-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-19931/2025] 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 resisted by the persons 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 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 allowed. Accordingly, the impugned Notices are quashed and set aside, as far as the juri iction of

[2025:RJ-JP:51131-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-19931/2025] 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 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 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 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 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.

[2025:RJ-JP:51131-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-19931/2025]

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 notice that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for Assessment Year 2012-2013) was issued on 28.03.2023 and the assessment order was passed on 07.03.2024 and the same has been challenged before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 06.04.2024 which is currently pending. The same has been challenged in the present writ petition.

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

[2025:RJ-JP:51131-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-19931/2025] the proceedings based on the notice issued by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer.

9.

The present Civil Writ Petition stands disposed of.

10.

All pending applications also stand disposed of. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ AMIT/17

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →