ESTAFF CONNECT PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

PDF · subscribers
CW/18109/2025HC RajasthanRJHC02099001202526 November 2025Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MANEESH SHARMA4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Court held that any jurisdictional error in the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be cured. The notices issued for assessment and reassessment by the JAO do not withstand the broader scheme of law, which requires automated allocation based on algorithms and random assignment of the assessing officer. The Court emphasized that the legislature's vision in infusing technology for a more transparent and impartial taxation system through randomized allocations must be given full meaning. The mandate of Section 151A of the Act has to be strictly followed, and the JAO does not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 as it would weaken Section 151A. Adherence to the algorithm-based random assessing system is mandatory for assessment and reassessment under Sections 147, 148, and 148A, in light of the sanction under Section 151A. Consequently, the impugned notices were quashed and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Court also held that instructions and circulars by the Board cannot override statutory provisions. Notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and proceedings initiated without faceless assessment under Section 144B are contrary to the Act. The time spent during litigation is to be excluded for computing the limitation for issuing fresh notices, if needed. The present writ petition was allowed, quashing the notice dated June 27, 2025, and consequential orders.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Estaff Connect Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated June 27, 2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for Assessment Year 2020-2021, and any consequential orders. The respondent is the Income Tax Department. The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, noted that the issue raised in the present writ petition had been adjudicated by a Co-ordinate Bench in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11787/2024 (Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. Vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr.) and other connected petitions decided on March 19, 2025. The Court also referred to an order passed by one of the judges in CWP No. 21509/2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.) decided on July 29, 2024. The present writ petition was allowed in terms of the observations and order passed in the cited cases.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) are valid when the scheme envisages automated allocation based on algorithms and random assignment of assessing officers? - Assessee's Contention: The petitioner implicitly challenges the jurisdiction of the JAO to issue the notice, aligning with the arguments presented in the cited cases. The core issue revolves around the procedural validity of notices issued outside the faceless assessment regime. - Revenue's Contention: Not explicitly recorded in the judgment. However, the revenue's counsel accepted notice and the court proceeded to adjudicate based on prior judgments. 2. Whether the mandate of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been strictly followed, and if notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 render Section 151A weak or diminish its activation? - Assessee's Contention: Implicitly argued that the issuance of notices by the JAO violates Section 151A and the principles of faceless assessment, as detailed in the cited judgments. - Revenue's Contention: Not explicitly recorded in the judgment. 3. Whether notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, are contrary to the provisions of the Act? - Assessee's Contention: The petitioner relies on the precedent that such notices and proceedings are contrary to the Act, as held in prior judgments. - 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 144B,Section 119,Section 120

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JP:47896-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18109/2025 Estaff Connect Private Limited, Having Its Registered Office At Plot No-2, Behind Bhagat Vatika, Civil Lines, Jaipur-302006, Rajasthan, India Through Its Director Mr. Paramjeet Singh Sodhi, Duly Authorized ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Department, Itd Wd 6(3), Jaipur, New Cerntral Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302005 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Gunjan Pathak, Adv. with Mr.Kanishk Singhal, Adv., Mr.Aditya Bohra, Adv. & Ms.Ishita Rawat, Adv. through VC. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Palash Gupta, Adv. for Mr.Sandeep Pathak, Adv. HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 26/11/2025 1. Issue notice to the respondent. 2. Mr. Palash Gupta, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of 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:

[2025:RJ-JP:47896-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-18109/2025] “18. This Court further observes that any jurisdictional error in the notices has to be cured and thus, the 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 wisdom. The legislature in its own vision and wisdom, 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 wisdom 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 wisdom 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.

[2025:RJ-JP:47896-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-18109/2025] 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 jurisdiction 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 jurisdiction 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 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 (Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.), 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

[2025:RJ-JP:47896-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-18109/2025] 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 jurisdiction. 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. Keeping in view 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. 6. The notice dated 27.06.2025 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for the Assessment Year 2020-2021 and all the consequential orders passed there on the said basis stands quashed and set aside. 7. All pending applications stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA), J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ Himanshu Soni/13

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →