RAVINDRA WUNDURTHY S/O VENKATA SUBBARAMAYYA WUNUDURTHY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR

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.

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

Consequently, the present writ petitions are allowed. 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 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.

2 All pending applications stand disposed of.” Keeping in view the 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. Accordingly, the notice dated 13.04.2023 issued by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer(JAO) and all the consequential orders passed there on the said basis stand quashed and set aside. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J DANISH USMANI /03