Loading High Court cases…
1,247 orders · Page 2 of 25
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the notice dated 24.03.2024 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (J.A.O.) and all consequential orders. The court held that the mandate of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be strictly followed, and the JAO does not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act. This would weaken Section 151A and diminish its activation. For assessment and reassessment under Sections 147, 148, and 148A, adherence to an algorithm-based random assessing system is required. The court found that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148, without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, are contrary to the Act. The court also held that circulars or instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. The court granted liberty 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 the litigation was excluded for computing the limitation for issuing fresh notices.
The High Court held that so long as the law declared in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra) and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) – that jurisdiction vests with the Faceless Assessing Officer – continues to hold, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer are not legally sustainable. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 01.03.2024 under Section 148A(3) and the consequential notice dated 09.03.2025 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with all consequential proceedings, were quashed and set aside for being without jurisdiction. The Court clarified that the Revenue is at liberty to proceed afresh through the Faceless Assessing Officer, strictly in accordance with law, subject to limitations and legal requirements. Furthermore, liberty was granted to the Revenue to act in accordance with law if the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited are reversed, set aside, or materially modified by the Supreme Court. The petitioner's counsel stated that other grounds were not pressed and undertook to withdraw a previously filed appeal.
The Tribunal, following the decision in M/s. Jagtamba Timber Mart Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), quashed and set aside the notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the assessment order dated March 21, 2025, passed under Section 147 of the Act, along with consequential proceedings. The Court accepted the undertaking of the petitioner to apply to withdraw any appeal already filed within two weeks. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the notice under Section 148 of the Act if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra), or Shree Cement Limited (supra). All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the order passed in the Jagtamba Timber Mart case.
The Tribunal, following the judgment of a coordinate Bench in M/s. Jagtamba Timber Mart (supra), quashed and set aside the notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the assessment order dated March 21, 2025, passed under Section 147 of the Act, along with consequential proceedings. The court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra), or Shree Cement Limited (supra). The petitioner undertook to withdraw an appeal already filed within two weeks, which was accepted by the court. All other grounds raised by the petitioner were not pressed and were kept open to be taken up at an appropriate stage. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the order passed in M/s Jagtamba Timber Mart (supra).
The Court acknowledged that the issue raised by the petitioner regarding the invalidity of notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer has been settled by co-ordinate benches in Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. vs. The Income Tax Officer & Anr. and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. These judgments held that notices issued by JAOs under Section 148 of the Act, without adherence to the algorithm-based random assessing system as mandated by Section 151A and the faceless regime, are liable to be quashed. However, the Court noted that the appeal in the present case was preferred against the final order, and it would be inappropriate to pass an order that would render the appeal redundant. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The Commissioner was directed to consider the application and pass appropriate orders within 15 days, taking into account the High Court's judgments quashing proceedings based on notices issued by the JAO. The time spent during the pendency of the litigation was to be excluded for computing the limitation for issuing fresh notices, if required. The writ petition was disposed of.
The Court held that as long as the law declared in Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (which held that jurisdiction vests with the Faceless Assessing Officer) continues to be in force, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer are not legally sustainable. Consequently, the impugned notices dated 24.03.2024 under Section 148A(3) and 11.03.2025 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with all consequential proceedings, were quashed and set aside for being without jurisdiction. The Court clarified that the respondent-Revenue is at liberty to proceed afresh through the Faceless Assessing Officer, strictly in accordance with law, subject to limitations and legal requirements. Furthermore, liberty was reserved for the Revenue to act in accordance with law if the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited are reversed, set aside, or materially modified by the Supreme Court. The petitioner stated that other grounds were not being pressed and undertook to withdraw the appeal filed.
The Court held that so long as the law declared in Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (which stated that jurisdiction vests with the Faceless Assessing Officer) continues to hold the field, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer are not legally sustainable. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 18.03.2025 issued under Section 148A(3) and all consequential proceedings were quashed and set aside for being without jurisdiction. The Court clarified that the respondent-Revenue is at liberty to proceed afresh through the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) strictly in accordance with law and the prevailing statutory framework, subject to limitations and other legal requirements. Liberty was also reserved for the Revenue to act in accordance with law if the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited are reversed, set aside, or materially modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner stated that other grounds were not being pressed and would be taken up at an appropriate stage.
The Rajasthan High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 and the assessment order dated March 7, 2025, passed under Section 147, along with consequential proceedings. The Court found that the Gujarat High Court's decision in Talati and Talati LLP was based on a reading of Explanation 2 to Section 148 without considering the combined effect of the notification dated March 29, 2022, and CBDT orders dated March 31, 2021, and September 6, 2021. The Court distinguished the Gujarat High Court's reasoning, stating that the Bombay High Court in Abhin Anilkumar Shah had held that these earlier CBDT orders did not alter the scope of the faceless scheme notification. The Court disagreed with the Gujarat High Court's understanding that the FAO cannot fulfill the pre-requisites for issuing a Section 148 notice in search cases. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court interferes with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The petitioner undertook to withdraw the appeal filed.
The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, decided that the controversy involved in the present writ petitions was no longer res integra and stood resolved by a Co-ordinate Bench order dated 16.09.2025 in the case of Shri Ravi Agarwal S/o Shri Satya Narayan Agarwal Vs. Income-Tax Officer and Ors. (D. B. Civil Writ Petition No.11981/2025). The Court ordered the disposal of the instant writ petitions in terms of the said Co-ordinate Bench order. The specific findings or reasoning of the Co-ordinate Bench order are not detailed in this judgment, nor are the operative directions beyond disposal in terms of the precedent. Any pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with liberty granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. The Court clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be considered an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue claimed by the revenue was expressly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. No specific finding was given on the merits of the case.
The High Court held that the civil writ petition filed by the petitioner has become infructuous. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition. Any pending applications related to the petition were also disposed of accordingly. The reasoning for the petition becoming infructuous is not elaborated upon in the judgment. No specific findings on the merits of the original dispute, if any, were made as the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition that has become infructuous is to be dismissed.
The High Court, upon hearing the learned counsels for both parties, acknowledged their submission that the controversy was no longer res integra and stood resolved by a co-ordinate Bench order dated 16.09.2025 in the case of Shri Ravi Agarwal. Consequently, the Court ordered the disposal of the instant writ petition in terms of the aforementioned co-ordinate Bench order. The reasoning is based on the principle of judicial discipline and consistency, where a co-ordinate bench's decision on a similar issue is followed. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition accordingly. Any pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court held that as long as the law declared in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra) and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), which vests jurisdiction with the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), continues to hold the field, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) are not legally sustainable. Consequently, the impugned notices dated 24.06.2025, issued under Section 148A(3) and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with all consequential proceedings, were quashed and set aside for being without jurisdiction. The Court clarified that liberty is reserved for the respondent-Revenue to proceed afresh through the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) in accordance with law, subject to limitations and legal requirements. Furthermore, the Revenue is at liberty to act in accordance with law if the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited are reversed, set aside, or materially modified by the Supreme Court. The petitioner stated that other grounds were not pressed and undertook to withdraw the appeal already filed.
The High Court held that as long as the law declared in Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (holding that jurisdiction vests with the Faceless Assessing Officer) continues to hold the field, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer would not be legally sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 30.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with all consequential proceedings, were quashed and set aside for being without jurisdiction. The Court clarified that liberty was reserved in favour of the respondent-Revenue to proceed afresh through the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), strictly in accordance with law and the prevailing statutory framework, subject to limitation and other legal requirements. It was further clarified that if the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited are reversed, set aside, or materially modified by the Supreme Court, the respondent-Revenue shall be at liberty to act in accordance with law. The petitioner stated that other grounds were not being pressed and would be taken up at an appropriate stage. The petitioner undertook to withdraw the appeal already filed.
The Court held that so long as the law declared in Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which establishes that jurisdiction vests with the Faceless Assessing Officer, continues to hold the field, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer are not legally sustainable. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 30.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with all consequential proceedings, was quashed and set aside for being without jurisdiction. The Court clarified that liberty is reserved for the respondent-Revenue to proceed afresh through the Faceless Assessing Officer, strictly in accordance with law and the prevailing statutory framework, subject to limitations and other legal requirements. Furthermore, the Revenue is at liberty to act in accordance with law if the aforementioned judgments are reversed, set aside, or materially modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner stated that other grounds were not being pressed and would be taken up at an appropriate stage.
The High Court held that so long as the law declared in Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which vests jurisdiction with the Faceless Assessing Officer, continues to hold the field, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer are not legally sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 30.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings were quashed and set aside for being without jurisdiction. The Court clarified that liberty is reserved for the respondent-Revenue to proceed afresh through the Faceless Assessing Officer, strictly in accordance with law, subject to limitations and legal requirements. Furthermore, liberty was granted to the Revenue to act in accordance with law if the aforementioned judgments are reversed, set aside, or materially modified by the Supreme Court. The petitioner stated that other grounds were not being pressed and would be taken up at an appropriate stage, undertaking to withdraw the appeal already filed.
The Court held that as long as the law declared in Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. continues to hold that jurisdiction vests with the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) are not legally sustainable. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 22.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with all consequential proceedings, were quashed and set aside for being without jurisdiction. The Court clarified that liberty was reserved in favour of the respondent-Revenue to proceed afresh through the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) strictly in accordance with law, subject to limitations and other legal requirements. Furthermore, the Court made it clear that if the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited were reversed, set aside, or materially modified by the Supreme Court, the Revenue would be at liberty to act accordingly. The petitioner stated that other grounds were not being pressed and would be taken up at an appropriate stage.
The High Court held that as long as the judgments in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra) and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) hold that jurisdiction vests with the Faceless Assessing Officer, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer are not legally sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 30.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings were quashed and set aside for being without jurisdiction. The Court clarified that the Revenue is at liberty to proceed afresh through the Faceless Assessing Officer, strictly in accordance with law and the prevailing statutory framework, subject to limitation and other legal requirements. Furthermore, liberty was reserved for the Revenue to act in accordance with law if the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited are reversed, set aside, or materially modified by the Supreme Court. The petitioner stated that other grounds were not being pressed and undertook to withdraw a previously filed appeal.
The High Court held that so long as the law declared in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra) and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), which vests jurisdiction with the Faceless Assessing Officer, continues to be valid, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer are not legally sustainable. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 19.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with all consequential proceedings, were quashed and set aside for being without jurisdiction. The Court clarified that liberty is reserved for the respondent-Revenue to proceed afresh through the Faceless Assessing Officer, strictly in accordance with law, subject to limitations and legal requirements. Furthermore, the Revenue was granted liberty to act in accordance with law if the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited are reversed, set aside, or materially modified by the Supreme Court. The petitioner's counsel stated that other grounds were not being pressed and undertook to withdraw the appeal already filed.
The Court held that as long as the law declared in Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (which established that jurisdiction vests with the Faceless Assessing Officer) continues to be in force, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer are not legally sustainable. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 30.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings were quashed and set aside for being without jurisdiction. The Court clarified that the respondent-Revenue is at liberty to proceed afresh through the Faceless Assessing Officer, strictly in accordance with law, subject to limitations and legal requirements. Furthermore, liberty was reserved for the Revenue to act in accordance with law if the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited are reversed, set aside, or materially modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner stated that other grounds were not being pressed and would be taken up at an appropriate stage.
The High Court held that as long as the law declared in Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which established that jurisdiction vests with the Faceless Assessing Officer, remains in effect, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer are not legally sustainable. Consequently, the impugned notices dated 24.06.2025 under Section 148A(3) and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with all consequential proceedings, were quashed and set aside for being without jurisdiction. The Court clarified that liberty was reserved for the Revenue to proceed afresh through the Faceless Assessing Officer, strictly in accordance with law, subject to limitations and legal requirements. Furthermore, the Revenue was granted liberty to act in accordance with law if the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited were reversed, set aside, or materially modified by the Supreme Court. The petitioner stated that other grounds were not being pressed and undertook to withdraw the appeal already filed.
The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, held that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is no longer res integra and stands resolved by a co-ordinate bench order of the same court dated 16.09.2025 in the case of Shri Ravi Agarwal S/o Shri Satya Narayan Agarwal Vs. Income-Tax Officer and Ors.; D. B. Civil Writ Petition No.11981/2025. Based on this submission by both parties, the Court ordered the disposal of the instant writ petition in terms of the aforementioned co-ordinate bench order. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition accordingly. No specific issue was left undecided; the decision was based on the precedent of a co-ordinate bench.
The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, disposed of the writ petition based on the submissions of the learned counsels for the respective parties. The Court was informed that the controversy involved in the present case was no longer res integra and had been resolved by a co-ordinate bench order dated 16.09.2025 in the case of Ravi Agarwal S/o Shri Satya Narayan Agarwal Vs. Income-Tax Officer and Ors.; D. B. Civil Writ Petition No.11981/2025. Consequently, the Court ordered the disposal of the instant writ petition in terms of the aforementioned co-ordinate bench order. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition as prayed for by the parties, following the precedent set by the co-ordinate bench. Any pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court held that the issue involved in the present writ petitions is no longer res integra and has been resolved by a co-ordinate Bench order dated 16.09.2025 in the case of Shri Ravi Agarwal S/o Shri Satya Narayan Agarwal Vs. Income-Tax Officer and Ors.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11981/2025. Consequently, the Court ordered the disposal of the instant writ petitions in terms of the aforementioned precedent. The reasoning is based on the joint submission of the counsels for both parties, indicating a consensus that the matter has been decided by a higher judicial authority within the same court. The ratio decidendi is that when a co-ordinate bench has already decided a common issue, subsequent similar matters should be disposed of in line with that decision. The operative direction was to dispose of the petitions accordingly. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the issue involved in the present writ petitions is no longer res integra and has been resolved by a co-ordinate Bench order dated 16.09.2025 in the case of Shri Ravi Agarwal S/o Shri Satya Narayan Agarwal Vs. Income-Tax Officer and Ors.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11981/2025. Consequently, the Court ordered the disposal of the instant writ petitions in terms of the aforementioned precedent. The reasoning is based on the joint submission of the counsels for both parties, indicating a consensus that the matter has been decided by a higher judicial authority within the same court. The ratio decidendi is that when a co-ordinate bench has already decided a common issue, subsequent similar matters should be disposed of in line with that decision. The operative direction was to dispose of the petitions accordingly. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the issue involved in the present writ petitions is no longer res integra and has been resolved by a co-ordinate Bench order dated 16.09.2025 in the case of Shri Ravi Agarwal S/o Shri Satya Narayan Agarwal Vs. Income-Tax Officer and Ors.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11981/2025. Consequently, the Court ordered the disposal of the instant writ petitions in terms of the aforementioned precedent. The reasoning is based on the joint submission of the counsels for both parties, indicating a consensus that the matter has been decided by a higher judicial authority within the same court. The ratio decidendi is that when a co-ordinate bench has already decided a common issue, subsequent similar matters should be disposed of in line with that decision. The operative direction was to dispose of the petitions accordingly. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the issue involved in the present writ petitions is no longer res integra and has been resolved by a co-ordinate Bench order dated 16.09.2025 in the case of Shri Ravi Agarwal S/o Shri Satya Narayan Agarwal Vs. Income-Tax Officer and Ors.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11981/2025. Consequently, the Court ordered the disposal of the instant writ petitions in terms of the aforementioned precedent. The reasoning is based on the joint submission of the counsels for both parties, indicating a consensus that the matter has been decided by a higher judicial authority within the same court. The ratio decidendi is that when a co-ordinate bench has already decided a common issue, subsequent similar matters should be disposed of in line with that decision. The operative direction was to dispose of the petitions accordingly. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the issue involved in the present writ petitions is no longer res integra and has been resolved by a co-ordinate Bench order dated 16.09.2025 in the case of Shri Ravi Agarwal S/o Shri Satya Narayan Agarwal Vs. Income-Tax Officer and Ors.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11981/2025. Consequently, the Court ordered the disposal of the instant writ petitions in terms of the aforementioned precedent. The reasoning is based on the joint submission of the counsels for both parties, indicating a consensus that the matter has been decided by a higher judicial authority within the same court. The ratio decidendi is that when a co-ordinate bench has already decided a common issue, subsequent similar matters should be disposed of in line with that decision. The operative direction was to dispose of the petitions accordingly. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the issue involved in the present writ petitions is no longer res integra and has been resolved by a co-ordinate Bench order dated 16.09.2025 in the case of Shri Ravi Agarwal S/o Shri Satya Narayan Agarwal Vs. Income-Tax Officer and Ors.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11981/2025. Consequently, the Court ordered the disposal of the instant writ petitions in terms of the aforementioned precedent. The reasoning is based on the joint submission of the counsels for both parties, indicating a consensus that the matter has been decided by a higher judicial authority within the same court. The ratio decidendi is that when a co-ordinate bench has already decided a common issue, subsequent similar matters should be disposed of in line with that decision. The operative direction was to dispose of the petitions accordingly. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, held that the issue involved in the present writ petitions was no longer res integra and had been resolved by a co-ordinate Bench order dated 16.09.2025 in the case of Shri Ravi Agarwal Vs. Income-Tax Officer and Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11981/2025). Consequently, the Court ordered the disposal of the instant writ petitions in terms of the aforementioned precedent. The reasoning is based on the parties' consensus that the matter is settled by prior judicial pronouncement. No specific findings on the merits of the individual cases were made, as the disposal was based on the established legal position. Any pending applications were also disposed of accordingly. The judgment does not leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal (referring to the High Court in this writ petition context) held that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is no longer res integra and has been resolved by a Division Bench order of the same Court dated 11.11.2025 in the case of Samir Andrea Kasliwal versus Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. (DB Civil Writ Petition No.15349/2024 and other connected matters). Based on this finding, the Court ordered that the present writ petition be disposed of in similar terms as the aforementioned precedent. The reasoning is that the issue has been authoritatively decided by a higher bench of the same court, making it binding precedent. The ratio decidendi is that where a controversy has been settled by a binding judicial pronouncement, subsequent similar matters should follow the same. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition accordingly. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, held that the issue involved in all the writ petitions is common and no longer res integra. The court noted that the controversy has been resolved by a co-ordinate bench's order dated 16.09.2025 in the case of Shri Ravi Agarwal S/o Shri Satya Narayan Agarwal Vs. Income-Tax Officer and Ors.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11981/2025. Based on this submission by the learned counsels for both the petitioners and the respondents, the court ordered the disposal of the instant writ petitions in terms of the aforementioned co-ordinate bench order. The ratio decidendi is that if a consistent view has been taken by a co-ordinate bench on a common issue, subsequent similar matters should be disposed of in line with that precedent, thereby promoting judicial efficiency and consistency. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
The High Court held that the issue involved in the present writ petitions is no longer res integra and has been resolved by a co-ordinate Bench order dated 16.09.2025 in the case of Shri Ravi Agarwal S/o Shri Satya Narayan Agarwal Vs. Income-Tax Officer and Ors.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11981/2025. Consequently, the Court ordered the disposal of the instant writ petitions in terms of the aforementioned precedent. The reasoning is based on the joint submission of the counsels for both parties, indicating a consensus that the matter has been decided by a higher judicial authority within the same court. The ratio decidendi is that when a co-ordinate bench has already decided a common issue, subsequent similar matters should be disposed of in line with that decision. The operative direction was to dispose of the petitions accordingly. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the notice dated 17.03.2025 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (J.A.O.) and all consequential orders passed thereon. The Court held that the mandate of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be strictly followed. It was further held that the JAO does not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, as this would weaken Section 151A and potentially lead to its diminishing activation. The Court reiterated that for assessment and reassessment under Sections 147, 148, and 148A, in light of the sanction under Section 151A, adherence to the algorithm-based random assessing system is mandatory. The impugned notices were quashed for want of jurisdiction. The Court also held that circulars or instructions by the CBDT cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. The time spent during the pendency of the litigation was to be excluded for computing the limitation for issuance of fresh notices, if the respondents chose to issue them in compliance with the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022, keeping the Facilitation Assessing Officer (FAO) as the assessing officer.
The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) are invalid. The Court reasoned that the broader scheme of law, particularly Part 2(i)(a) of the Scheme and Section 151A of the Act, mandates automated allocation based on an algorithm and random assignment of assessing officers to enhance transparency and impartiality. The legislative intent behind infusing technology and adopting a faceless regime is to optimize resource use and prevent local control that could prejudice assessees. The Court found that the JAO does not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148, as doing so weakens Section 151A and undermines the legislative purpose. Consequently, the impugned notices were quashed and set aside. The Court also referred to a previous decision by one of its judges, which held that circulars or instructions cannot override statutory provisions and that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience. The time spent during litigation was to be excluded for computing the limitation for issuing fresh notices, if required, in compliance with the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022, with the FAO as the assessing officer.
The Tribunal held that the mandate of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be strictly followed. It was found that Jurisdictional Assessing Officers (JAOs) do not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, as doing so weakens Section 151A and may lead to its diminished activation. The court emphasized that for assessment and reassessment under Sections 147, 148, and 148A, adherence to the algorithm-based random assessing system, as envisaged by the CBDT Notification dated March 29, 2022, and Section 151A, is mandatory. Notices issued by JAOs in contravention of this scheme were deemed to be against the legislative purpose and therefore liable to be quashed. The court quashed the notice dated March 17, 2025, issued by the JAO and all consequential orders. Liberty was granted to the respondents to issue fresh notices in compliance with the CBDT Notification, keeping the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as the assessing officer. The time spent during the litigation was to be excluded for computing the limitation for issuing fresh notices, if required. The judgment followed the principles laid down in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11787/2024 and Civil Writ Petition No. 21509/2023.
The High Court held that the mandate of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be strictly followed. It ruled that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) does not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, as doing so weakens Section 151A and may lead to its diminished activation. The Court found that for assessment and reassessment under Sections 147, 148, and 148A, in light of the sanction under Section 151A, adherence to the algorithm-based random assessing system is mandatory. Consequently, the impugned notices were quashed and set aside concerning the jurisdiction of JAOs to issue them. The Court also held that any circulars or instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the notice dated 05.04.2024 and the order dated 05.04.2024 passed under section 148A(d). The respondents were granted liberty to issue fresh notices in compliance with the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022, keeping the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as the assessing officer. The time spent during litigation was to be excluded for computing the limitation for fresh notices.
The Court acknowledged that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are contrary to the provisions of the Act and the faceless assessment scheme, as per previous judgments of its Coordinate Bench in Sharda Devi Chhajer and Jasjit Singh. These judgments held that Section 151A of the Act mandates adherence to an algorithm-based random assessing system, and JAOs lack the jurisdiction to issue such notices. The Court observed that while the faceless regime was introduced, the appeal was against the final order. To avoid making the appeal redundant, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). This Commissioner is to consider the application and pass appropriate orders within 15 days, taking into account the Court's prior judgments quashing proceedings based on notices issued by the JAO. The Court expressly left undecided the merits of the appeal itself, focusing on the procedural defect in the notice issuance.
The Tribunal held that the petitioner's request to withdraw the civil writ petition should be granted. Consequently, the civil writ petition was dismissed. The reasoning provided is that the learned counsel for the petitioner explicitly stated their intention to withdraw the petition. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition. No issues were left undecided as the matter was disposed of on the petitioner's request for withdrawal.
The Tribunal considered the petitioner's request to withdraw the civil writ petition. The court allowed the withdrawal. Consequently, the civil writ petition was dismissed. Any pending applications related to the petition were also disposed of. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the case or any substantive tax-related issues, as the petition was withdrawn by the petitioner. Therefore, no specific tax provisions were analyzed or decided upon.
The High Court held that the petitioner's request to withdraw the civil writ petition should be granted. Consequently, the Civil Writ Petition No. 12337/2025 was dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning provided is that the learned counsel for the petitioner explicitly stated their intention to withdraw the petition. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition. Any pending applications related to the petition were also disposed of. No issues were left undecided as the petition was withdrawn.
The Tribunal decided that the petitioner was entitled to withdraw the civil writ petition. The reasoning was based on the explicit request made by the petitioner's counsel. Consequently, the civil writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Any pending applications related to the petition were also disposed of. No decision on the merits of the case was made.
The High Court noted that learned counsels for both the petitioner and the respondent submitted that the controversy involved in the present case is no longer res integra and stands resolved by a co-ordinate Bench order of the Court dated 16.09.2025 in the case of Shri Ravi Agarwal S/o Shri Satya Narayan Agarwal Vs. Income-Tax Officer and Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11981/2025). Based on this joint submission, the Court ordered the disposal of the instant writ petition in terms of the aforementioned co-ordinate Bench order. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in accordance with the precedent. No specific issue was decided on merits by this bench; the decision was based on the submission that the issue was already settled by a prior order.
The Tribunal held that the controversy involved in the present writ petition was no longer res integra and stood resolved by a co-ordinate Bench order of the Court dated 16.09.2025 in the case of Shri Ravi Agarwal S/o Shri Satya Narayan Agarwal Vs. Income-Tax Officer and Ors.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11981/2025. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the said co-ordinate Bench order. The reasoning is based on the submission of both parties that the issue is settled. The ratio decidendi is that if a co-ordinate bench has already decided a matter, subsequent similar matters should be disposed of in line with that precedent. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition accordingly. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Talati and Talati LLP was based on a reading of Explanation 2 to Section 148 and an understanding that the pre-requisites for issuing a Section 148 notice in search cases could not be met by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The Tribunal respectfully disagreed with this view. It noted that the Gujarat High Court was not made aware of the Bombay High Court's reasoning in Abhin Anilkumar Shah vs. Income Tax Officer, International Tax Ward Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai, which dealt with CBDT orders creating exceptions for assessment proceedings in Central and International Taxation charges. The Bombay High Court in Abhin Anilkumar Shah held that the faceless scheme notification dated March 29, 2022, did not include or refer to these earlier CBDT orders, and it would be doing violence to the language of the notification to read them into it. The Tribunal found the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. to be distinguishable as it pertained to Explanation 1 to Section 148, not Explanation 2. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 and the assessment order dated March 17, 2025, passed under Section 147, along with consequential proceedings, with liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court interferes with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The petitioner was permitted to withdraw the appeal.
The High Court, upon being informed by the learned counsels for both the petitioner and the respondents that the controversy involved in the present case was no longer res integra and had been resolved by a co-ordinate Bench order dated 16.09.2025 in the case of Shri Ravi Agarwal S/o Shri Satya Narayan Agarwal Vs. Income-Tax Officer and Ors.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11981/2025, ordered accordingly. The principle derived is that if a matter is covered by a prior decision of a co-ordinate bench, subsequent similar matters will be disposed of in terms of that precedent. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the aforementioned co-ordinate Bench order. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal (High Court) held that the petitioner's request to withdraw the civil writ petition should be granted. The court acknowledged the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner expressing the desire to withdraw the petition. Consequently, the court ordered the dismissal of the civil writ petition as withdrawn. Any pending applications related to the petition were also disposed of accordingly. The court did not delve into the substantive tax issues that might have been the subject of the writ petition, as the matter was concluded based on the petitioner's decision to withdraw.
The Court acknowledged that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are invalid when the faceless regime is in place, as per the judgments in 'Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. Vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr.' and 'Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.'. These judgments held that the mandate of Section 151A must be strictly followed and that JAOs do not have the jurisdiction to issue such notices, which weakens Section 151A. The Court noted that in this specific case, a final order was passed after the notice was issued by the JAO, and an appeal was preferred against this final order. Therefore, instead of quashing the proceedings directly, which would make the appeal redundant, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The Commissioner was directed to consider the application and pass appropriate orders within 15 days, taking into account the previous judgments of the Court regarding the quashing of proceedings based on notices issued by the JAO.
The High Court noted that the issue raised in the present writ petition had been finally adjudicated by a coordinate bench in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11787/2024. In that judgment, the Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Act by the JAO were not sustainable as they did not adhere to the broader scheme requiring automated allocation based on an algorithm and random assignment of the assessing officer. The Court emphasized that the mandate of Section 151A of the Act must be strictly followed, and the JAO lacks jurisdiction to issue such notices, as it weakens Section 151A. Consequently, the impugned notices were quashed and set aside. The Court also referred to another judgment by one of its judges in CWP No. 21509/2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.) which reiterated that circulars cannot override statutory provisions and that notices issued by the JAO without conducting faceless assessment are contrary to the Act. However, in the present case, since an appeal was preferred against the final order, the Court deemed it inappropriate to pass orders that would make the appeal redundant. Instead, the petitioner was directed to file an application before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), who was directed to consider it and pass appropriate orders within 15 days, taking into account the prior judgments quashing proceedings based on notices issued by the JAO.