GOVINDI GARDEN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIOENR OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/562/2026HC RajasthanRJHC02002024202616 January 2026Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are liable to be quashed. This is because the mandate of Section 151A of the Act, which requires adherence to an algorithm-based random assessing system for assessment and reassessment under Sections 147, 148, and 148A, must be strictly followed. The Court reasoned that allowing JAOs to issue such notices would weaken Section 151A and diminish its activation. The legislative intent behind introducing technology and an algorithm for randomized allocation of cases, as outlined in Part 2(i)(a) of the Scheme and emphasized in CBDT Circulars, is to enhance transparency and impartiality. Any attempt to circumvent this technological mandate, including retaining local control, undermines the legislative wisdom and the gains of the progressive faceless regime. The co-ordinate bench's decision in Sharda Devi Chhajer was followed. The impugned notice dated 01.03.2025 and consequential orders were quashed. Liberty was granted to the respondents to issue fresh notices in compliance with the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022, keeping the FAO as the assessing officer. The time spent during litigation was excluded for limitation purposes.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Govindi Garden, through its partner Shri Ritesh Agarwal, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. The petition challenged a notice dated 01.03.2025 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for Assessment Year 2021-2022 and any consequential orders. The respondent was the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur. Both parties agreed that the issue was adjudicated by a co-ordinate bench of the High Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11787/2024 (Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. Vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr.) decided on 19.03.2025. The High Court had previously considered a similar issue concerning notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the context of faceless assessment schemes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) are valid when the scheme mandates automated, algorithm-based random allocation of cases for assessment and reassessment, as per Section 151A of the Act and CBDT Circulars. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued, by relying on the co-ordinate bench's decision, that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 are invalid because they bypass the faceless assessment regime and the algorithm-based random allocation mandated by Section 151A of the Act and relevant CBDT notifications. They contended that such manual control undermines legislative intent for transparency and efficiency. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned counsel for the respondent accepted notice and did not present separate arguments, instead relying on the co-ordinate bench's adjudication. The judgment notes that the revenue suggested a distinction, which was not accepted.

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

[2026:RJ-JP:1872-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 562/2026 Govindi Garden, Through Its Partner Shri Ritesh Agarwal Aged About 42 Years, Son Of Shri Jugal Kishore Garg, R/o A-36, Govindi, Takhteshahi Road, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur 302004 ----Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur Having Its Address At 4Th Floor, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shankar Lal Poddar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Ms. Tanushka Saxena HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA Order 16/01/2026 1. Issue notice to respondent. 2. Mr. Siddharth Bapna, learned counsel, accepts notice on be- half 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: “18. This Court further observes that any jurisdictional error in the notices has to be cured and thus, the no-

[2026:RJ-JP:1872-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-562/2026] tices 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 allo- cation 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 reassess- ment 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 vi- sion 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 intelli- gence 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 mean- ing 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 Cir- cular 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 juris-

[2026:RJ-JP:1872-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-562/2026] diction 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 Sec- tions 147, 148 & 148A and in light of the sanction un- der Section 151A, adherence has to be made to algo- rithm 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 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 lib- erty to the respondents to issue fresh notices in compli- ance 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 liti- gation 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 instruc- tions 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 implica- tions are required to be followed strictly and mandato- rily. 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 confu- sion 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 provi- sions and for their implementation.

[2026:RJ-JP:1872-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-562/2026] 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no oc- casion to distinguish or take a different view as sug- gested 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-ordi- nate Bench(supra) notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and the proceedings initi- ated thereafter without conducting the faceless assess- ment 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 01.03.2025 issued by the Jurisdictional As- sessing Officer (JAO) for the Assessment Year 2021.2022 and all the consequential orders passed there on the said basis stands quashed and set aside. 7. All pending applications stand disposed of. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACJ Deepta Arora/42

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →