Rajasthan High Court Judgments — 2025

The Court acknowledged that the issue of notices by the JAO instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer, contrary to the faceless regime and Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been adjudicated by a coordinate bench in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11787/2024: Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. Vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr. and by one of the judges in CWP No.21509/2023: Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. These judgments held that such notices are liable to be quashed. However, since the present writ petition was filed against the final order and the appeal has been preferred against it, the Court found it inappropriate to pass an order that would make the appeal redundant. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), who would consider the judgment and pass appropriate orders within 15 days. The Civil Writ Petition was disposed of accordingly.

The Court noted that the issue concerning the validity of notices issued by the JAO instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer had been conclusively decided by coordinate benches in the cases of Sharda Devi Chhajer and Jasjit Singh. These judgments held that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148, and subsequent proceedings without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court observed that while the faceless regime had been introduced, the final order in the petitioner's case was passed after the notice was issued by the JAO. To avoid making 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 High Court's judgments quashing proceedings based on notices issued by the JAO. The Civil Writ Petition was disposed of with this direction.

The Court acknowledged that the issue of notices by the JAO under Section 148, instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer as envisaged under Section 144B, has been held to be contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by coordinate benches of the High Court in previous judgments like Sharda Devi Chhajer and Jasjit Singh. These judgments quashed such notices for want of jurisdiction. However, the Court noted that in the present case, a final order had been passed after the notice was issued by the JAO, and an appeal had been preferred against this 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). The Commissioner was directed to consider the application and pass appropriate orders within 15 days, taking into account the High Court's prior judgments quashing proceedings based on notices issued by the JAO. The Civil Writ Petition was disposed of with this direction.

The High Court noted that the issue raised in the present writ petition had been finally adjudicated by coordinate benches in previous cases. Specifically, in Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. Vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr., the Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Act by the JAO do not withstand the broader scheme of automated allocation and random assignment of assessing officers. 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. The Court quashed the impugned notices, allowing the respondents to issue fresh notices in compliance with the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022, keeping the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as the assessing officer. Similarly, in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., the Court held that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B are contrary to the Act and set aside. 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) for appropriate orders within 15 days, considering the prior judgments.

The Court acknowledged that the issue of notices by the JAO instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer, contrary to the faceless regime and Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been held to be invalid by a coordinate bench of the same High Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11787/2024 (Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. Vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr.) and by one of the judges in CWP No.21509/2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.). These judgments held that such notices are contrary to the provisions of the Act and deserve to be quashed. However, since a final order had already been passed and an appeal was preferred against it, the Court deemed it inappropriate to pass an order that would make 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 prior judgments quashing proceedings based on notices issued by the JAO. The present Civil Writ Petition was disposed of with this direction.

The Court noted that the issue raised by the petitioner had been finally adjudicated by a coordinate bench 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. This earlier judgment held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Act by the JAO were not sustainable as they did not comply with the broader scheme requiring automated allocation based on algorithms and random assignment of assessing officers, as mandated by Section 151A of the Act. The Court in Sharda Devi Chhajer also quashed such notices and allowed the respondents to issue fresh notices in compliance with the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022. The present judgment also referred to a similar view taken by one of the judges in CWP No. 21509/2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.) decided on 29.07.2024. However, the Court observed that an appeal had been preferred against the final order in the present case, making it inappropriate to pass orders that would render the appeal redundant. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), who was directed to consider it and pass appropriate orders within 15 days, taking into account the prior judgments of the High Court.

The Court acknowledged that the notices were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which, in light of the judgments in Jasjit Singh and Sharda Devi Chhajer, would ordinarily render the proceedings invalid. These judgments held that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148, without adhering to the algorithm-based random assessing system and the faceless regime as envisaged under Section 144B, are contrary to the provisions of the Act and thus liable to be quashed for want of jurisdiction. However, the Court noted that a final order had already been passed in this case, and quashing the proceedings would render the appeal against the final order redundant. Therefore, instead of quashing the writ petition outright, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The Commissioner was instructed to consider the application and pass appropriate orders within 15 days, taking into account the Court's previous judgments on quashing proceedings based on notices issued by the JAO.

The Court acknowledged that the issue raised by the petitioner had been adjudicated by a coordinate bench in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11787/2024 (Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. Vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr.) and another case (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.). These judgments held that notices issued under Section 148 by the JAO, without adhering to the algorithm-based random assessing system envisaged by Section 151A and the faceless regime, were contrary to the provisions of the Act and deserved to be quashed. The Court noted that while the faceless regime was introduced, the final order in the petitioner's case was passed after the notice was issued by the JAO. However, to avoid making 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 quashing proceedings based on notices issued by the JAO. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction.

The Court acknowledged that the issue raised by the petitioner regarding the invalidity of notices issued by the JAO instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer had been definitively adjudicated by a Co-ordinate Bench in *Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. Vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr.* and also by one of the judges in *Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.*. These judgments held that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148, and subsequent proceedings without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, are contrary to the provisions of the Act and thus liable to be quashed for want of jurisdiction. However, since the present case involved an appeal against a final order, the Court found it 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), who was directed to consider the matter and pass appropriate orders within 15 days, taking into account the previous judgments of the Court quashing 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. That judgment held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Act by the JAO, without adherence to the algorithm-based random assessing system mandated by Section 151A, were liable to be quashed. 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 or instructions cannot override statutory provisions and that notices issued without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B are contrary to the Act. However, since a final order was passed after the notice was issued by the JAO, and an appeal was preferred against that final order, the Court deemed it inappropriate to pass orders that would make the appeal redundant. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) who would consider the matter and pass appropriate orders within 15 days, taking into account the High Court's previous judgments on quashing proceedings based on notices issued by the JAO. The Civil Writ Petition was disposed of accordingly.

The Court, referencing its own prior judgments in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11787/2024 (Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. Vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr.) and an order by one of the judges in CWP No.21509/2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.), held that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, and subsequent proceedings, were contrary to the provisions of the Act, particularly Section 151A, and the faceless assessment scheme. The Court acknowledged that the issue raised by the petitioner had been adjudicated in the cited cases, where such notices were quashed for want of jurisdiction. However, given that an appeal was preferred against the final order, the Court deemed it inappropriate to pass orders that would render the appeal redundant. Instead, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), who was instructed to consider the matter and pass appropriate orders within 15 days, taking into account the Court's prior judgments on quashing proceedings based on notices issued by the JAO. The Civil Writ Petition was disposed of.

The Court acknowledged that the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) were contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the established faceless regime, as per the rulings in Sharda Devi Chhajer and Jasjit Singh. These judgments held that Section 151A mandates adherence to an algorithm-based random assessing system, and JAOs lack the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148. The Court also noted that the final order was passed after the notice was issued by the JAO. However, considering that an appeal has been preferred against the final order, the Court deemed it inappropriate to pass an order that would render the appeal redundant. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The Commissioner is to consider this application and pass appropriate orders within 15 days, taking into account the previous judgments of the Court quashing proceedings based on notices issued by the JAO. The Court expressly left undecided the merits of the appeal itself, focusing instead on the procedural direction.

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 Court acknowledged that the issue of notices by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer, in contravention of the faceless regime and Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been held to be illegal by coordinate benches of the same court in cases like Sharda Devi Chhajer and Jasjit Singh. These judgments quashed such notices and proceedings. However, in the present case, a final order had already been passed, and the appeal was against that order. 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 concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The Commissioner was directed to consider this application and pass appropriate orders within 15 days, taking into account the previous judgments of the High Court quashing proceedings based on notices issued by the JAO. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction. The time spent during the pendency of the litigation was to be excluded for computing the limitation for issuing fresh notices, if required.

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.

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 and the assessment order dated 16.03.2025 passed under Section 147. The Tribunal found that the facts of the Gujarat High Court case (Talati and Talati LLP) were entirely different from the present case. The Gujarat High Court's reasoning 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 the FAO. The Tribunal disagreed with this reasoning. The Tribunal noted that the Gujarat High Court was not made aware of the Bombay High Court's reasoning in Abhin Anilkumar Shah, which dealt with exceptions to the faceless mechanism for assessment proceedings in Central and International Tax Charges. Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted that the Supreme Court had dismissed an SLP against a Telangana High Court order based on Venkataramana Reddy Patloola, which was in line with the Bombay High Court's reasoning. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned notice and assessment order were liable to be quashed. The revenue sought liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Tribunal kept open all rights and contentions of the parties and quashed the notice and order with liberty as prayed.

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 and the assessment order dated 16.03.2025 passed under Section 147. The Court found that the facts of the Gujarat High Court case (Talati and Talati LLP) were entirely different from the present case. The Gujarat High Court's reasoning was based on a reading of Explanation 2 to Section 148 and an understanding that the pre-requisites for issuing a notice under Section 148 in search cases could not be met by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The Rajasthan High Court disagreed with this reasoning. The Court 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 held that CBDT orders creating exceptions for assessment proceedings in Central Charges and International Tax Charges did not alter the faceless scheme. Furthermore, the Supreme Court had dismissed an SLP against a Telangana High Court order (Venkataramana Reddy Patloola) which was based on similar reasoning. The Court held that the impugned notice and assessment order were liable to be quashed. Liberty was granted 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 a related appeal.

The Tribunal held that while the proceedings initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) might have been questionable in light of previous judgments (Jasjit Singh and Sharda Devi Chhajer) concerning the faceless regime, it would be inappropriate for the High Court to pass orders that would render the already filed appeal redundant. Therefore, the court directed the petitioner to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The Appellate Authority is to consider these objections and pass appropriate orders within 15 days, taking into account the court's prior judgment on quashing proceedings based on a JAO's notice. The specific issue of the validity of the JAO's notice and the subsequent proceedings was not decided on merits by the High Court but was relegated to the Appellate Authority.

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the notice dated 27.06.2025 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for Assessment Year 2019-2020, and all consequential orders. The Court relied on the decision in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11787/2024, which held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Act by the JAO do not withstand the broader scheme of automated allocation based on algorithms and random assignment. The Court emphasized that the mandate of Section 151A of the Act must be strictly followed, and JAOs lack the jurisdiction to issue such notices, as it weakens Section 151A and leads to diminishing activation. Adherence to the algorithm-based random assessing system is required for assessments and reassessments under Sections 147, 148, and 148A, in light of the sanction under Section 151A. The Court also referred to its own prior decision in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., which held that circulars or instructions cannot override statutory provisions. The time spent during the pendency of the litigation was to be excluded for computing the limitation for issuing fresh notices, if needed, in compliance with the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022.

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.

The Tribunal, following the decision of a co-ordinate bench in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11787/2024, held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) are not sustainable. The Court reasoned that the legislative intent behind Section 151A and the faceless assessment scheme, which mandates algorithm-based random allocation of cases, is to enhance transparency and impartiality. Allowing local control by JAOs undermines this legislative wisdom and the gains of the progressive step towards a faceless regime. The Court found that the mandate of Section 151A must be strictly followed, and JAOs do not have the jurisdiction to issue such notices, as it weakens Section 151A. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 27.06.2025 issued by the JAO for AY 2021-2022 and all consequential orders were quashed and set aside. The respondents were granted liberty 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 to be excluded for limitation purposes.

The Tribunal held that the notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 and the assessment order dated March 12, 2025, passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were liable to be quashed and set aside. The Court found the facts of the Gujarat High Court case in Talati and Talati LLP to be entirely different from the present case. The Court noted that the Gujarat High Court's decision was based on a reading of Explanation 2 to Section 148 and an understanding that pre-requisites for issuing a notice under Section 148 in search cases could not be met by the FAO. The Rajasthan High Court disagreed with this view. The Court also considered the Bombay High Court's decision in Abhin Anilkumar Shah, which held that certain CBDT orders creating exceptions for assessment proceedings did not alter the faceless scheme. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's dismissal of an SLP against a Telangana High Court order based on Venkataramana Reddy Patloola supported the petitioner's stance. The revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The petitioner was permitted to withdraw other grounds not pressed. The petition was disposed of with the notice and assessment order quashed.

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 and the assessment order dated March 29, 2025, passed under Section 147, along with consequential proceedings. The Tribunal found the Gujarat High Court's reasoning in Talati and Talati LLP to be based on a different factual matrix and a narrower interpretation of the notification dated March 29, 2022, and related orders. The Tribunal agreed with the Bombay High Court's reasoning in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and Abhin Anilkumar Shah, which held that exceptions carved out by CBDT orders dated March 31, 2021, and September 6, 2021, for assessment proceedings in Central Charges and International Tax Charges were not implicitly included in the Faceless Scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The Tribunal held that it would be doing violence to the language of the scheme to read into it provisions not expressly stated. The revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. Other grounds raised by the petitioner were not pressed.

The Tribunal did not decide any substantive issues on merits. Upon instructions received, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a prayer to withdraw the civil writ petition. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the present civil writ petition as withdrawn. All pending applications associated with the writ petition were also disposed of. No finding was reached on any of the underlying tax disputes, and no principle can be cited for future cases as the decision was based on the withdrawal of the petition.

The High Court held that the notice dated 22.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2023-24, and all other consequential notices, were liable to be quashed and set aside. The Court found that the issue was squarely covered by a series of its own previous judgments, including Ravindra Singh and Jaskaran Singh Brar. These judgments had quashed reassessment proceedings initiated in search cases where notices were issued by the JAO, finding them invalid. The Court distinguished the Gujarat High Court's decision in Talati and Talati LLP, noting that it was based on a different factual matrix and understanding of the pre-requisites for issuing a Section 148 notice in search cases. The Supreme Court's dismissal of an SLP against a Telangana High Court order further supported this view. The petition was disposed of on the same terms as the cited judgments, quashing the notice and consequential proceedings, while keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.

The Tribunal held that the notice dated March 27, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential proceedings, were liable to be quashed and set aside. The Court found that the facts of the Gujarat High Court case (Talati and Talati LLP) were entirely different from the present case. The Gujarat High Court's reasoning was based on Explanation 2 to Section 148, without considering the implications of CBDT orders dated March 31, 2021, and September 6, 2021, which carved out exceptions for assessment proceedings in certain cases, and the subsequent e-assessment scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The Tribunal agreed with the Bombay High Court's reasoning in Abhin Anilkumar Shah vs. Income Tax Officer, International Tax Ward Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai, which held that the e-assessment scheme did not include or refer to the earlier CBDT orders, and it would be doing violence to the language of the scheme to read into it what was not expressly provided. Therefore, the notice issued by the JAO was deemed invalid. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited.

The Rajasthan High Court, in the case of Jaskaran Singh Brar (which was followed in the present case), quashed and set aside the notice dated March 26, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that the facts of the Gujarat High Court case in Talati and Talati LLP were entirely different from the present case. The Court noted that the Gujarat High Court's decision was based on a reading of Explanation 2 to Section 148 and an understanding that pre-requisites for issuing notice under Section 148 in search cases could not be met by the FAO. The Rajasthan High Court disagreed with this reasoning. The Court also considered the Bombay High Court's reasoning in Abhin Anilkumar Shah, which dealt with exceptions to the faceless mechanism for assessment proceedings in Central Charges and International Tax Charges. The Court held that the scheme notified on March 29, 2022, did not include or refer to earlier orders creating such exceptions. The Court quashed the notice with liberty to the revenue to revive it if the Apex Court interferes with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The petition was disposed of on these terms.

The Rajasthan High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148, and the assessment order dated March 24, 2025, passed under Section 147, along with consequential proceedings. The Court found the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Talati and Talati LLP to be based on a different set of facts and not fully considering the implications of CBDT orders dated March 31, 2021, and September 6, 2021, in conjunction with the notification dated March 29, 2022, which established the faceless assessment scheme. The Court disagreed with the Gujarat High Court's understanding that pre-requisite conditions for issuing a Section 148 notice in search cases could not be met by the FAO. The Court noted that the Revenue had filed a Special Leave Petition against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment and, with liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision differed, the petition was disposed of. The petitioner was permitted to withdraw the appeal filed. The Court explicitly stated that other grounds raised by the petitioner were not pressed and were kept open for future consideration.

The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner wished to withdraw the civil writ petition. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition. The Court also disposed of any pending applications in relation to the petition. The judgment does not delve into any substantive issues of income tax law, as the petition was withdrawn by the petitioner before any such adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner wished to withdraw the civil writ petition. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn. Any pending applications related to the petition were also disposed of accordingly. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the case or any substantive issues related to income tax assessment, as the petition was withdrawn at the outset.

The Tribunal held that the notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 and the assessment order dated March 24, 2025, passed under Section 147 of the Act, along with consequential proceedings, are liable to be quashed and set aside. The Court found the facts of the Gujarat High Court case (Talati and Talati LLP) to be entirely different from the present case. The Court disagreed with the Gujarat High Court's reasoning, stating it was not based on a comprehensive reading of the notification dated March 29, 2022, along with earlier CBDT orders (March 31, 2021/September 6, 2021), but rather on a limited understanding of Explanation 2 to Section 148 and the perceived inability of the FAO to fulfill pre-requisites in search cases. The Court emphasized that the scheme notified on March 29, 2022, did not include or reference the earlier CBDT orders, and reading them into the scheme would do violence to its language. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited.

The Tribunal (High Court) noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner expressed the desire to withdraw the civil writ petition. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn. The reasoning is based solely on the petitioner's request to withdraw the case. No decision on the merits of the case was made. Any pending applications related to the petition were also disposed of accordingly. The principle derived is that a writ petition can be dismissed upon the petitioner's request for withdrawal.

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148, and the assessment order dated March 24, 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 different interpretation of Explanation 2 to Section 148 and did not consider the reasoning of the Bombay High Court in Abhin Anilkumar Shah. The Bombay High Court in Abhin Anilkumar Shah had held that CBDT orders creating exceptions for assessment proceedings in Central Charges and International Tax Charges were not included in the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The Rajasthan High Court, with respect, disagreed with the Gujarat High Court's reasoning. The revenue sought liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Court granted this liberty. The petitioner undertook to withdraw a previously filed appeal.

The Tribunal decided that the petitioner's request to withdraw the civil writ petition should be granted. The reasoning is based on the explicit statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner expressing the desire to withdraw the petition. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the civil writ petition as withdrawn. Any pending applications related to the petition were also disposed of accordingly. No specific findings on the merits of the case were made as the petition was withdrawn. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition.

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 22, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential proceedings. The Court found that the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Talati and Talati LLP was based on a different factual matrix and a narrower interpretation of Explanation 2 to Section 148, without considering the impact of CBDT orders dated March 31, 2021, and September 06, 2021, and other High Court decisions like Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (Bombay) and Venkataramana Reddy Patloola (Telangana). The Court disagreed with the Gujarat High Court's reasoning that pre-requisites for issuing a Section 148 notice in search cases could not be met by a Faceless Assessing Officer. The Court explicitly stated that it did not agree with the Gujarat High Court's reasoning. The revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. Other grounds raised by the petitioner were not pressed.

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 and the assessment order dated March 29, 2025, passed under Section 147, along with consequential proceedings. The Tribunal found the facts of the present case to be entirely different from the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Talati and Talati LLP. The Tribunal noted that the Gujarat High Court's decision 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 the FAO. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this reasoning, referencing the Bombay High Court's decision in Abhin Anilkumar Shah, which held that CBDT orders creating exceptions for assessment proceedings in Central Charges did not negate the applicability of the faceless scheme. The Tribunal also noted that the Gujarat High Court was not made aware of the reasoning in Abhin Anilkumar Shah and the Telangana High Court's decision in Venkataramana Reddy Patloola. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The petitioner undertook to withdraw a previously filed appeal.

The Rajasthan High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 22, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential proceedings. The Court disagreed with the Gujarat High Court's reasoning in Talati and Talati LLP, finding that the Gujarat High Court's decision was not based on a combined reading of the notification dated March 29, 2022, with earlier CBDT orders (March 31, 2021, and September 06, 2021) that carved out exceptions for certain assessment proceedings. Instead, the Gujarat High Court's decision was based on a simpler reading of Explanation 2 to Section 148 and an understanding that pre-requisites for issuing a Section 148 notice in search cases could not be met by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The Rajasthan High Court found this understanding to be incorrect. The Court noted that the Bombay High Court in Abhin Anilkumar Shah had held that the CBDT orders creating exceptions did not alter the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. Other grounds raised by the petitioner were not pressed.

The Tribunal (High Court in this instance) held that the petitioner's request to withdraw the civil writ petition was granted. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The reasoning is straightforward: when a party seeks to withdraw their case, and there is no opposition or impediment, the court allows the withdrawal and disposes of the matter accordingly. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition. No issues were decided on merits.

The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the Civil Writ Petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The Court reasoned that since the petitioner explicitly wished to withdraw the petition, there was no impediment to granting this request. The Court did not delve into the merits of the case or the underlying tax dispute. Any pending applications related to the writ petition were also disposed of accordingly. No specific tax provisions were discussed or decided upon.

The Tribunal held that the controversy involved in the present writ petition was no longer res integra and had been resolved by a co-ordinate bench of the High Court. The reasoning was based on the submission made by the learned counsels for both the petitioner and the respondents, who jointly stated that the controversy stood resolved by the co-ordinate bench order dated 21.08.2025 in the case of Rajesh Sharma Vs. Income Tax Officer. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the disposal of the instant writ petition in terms of that order. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is covered by a previous decision of a co-ordinate bench, subsequent similar matters should be disposed of in accordance with that precedent. No specific issue was left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the present appeal is dismissed as non-maintainable. This decision was based on the joint submission of the parties that the issue is covered by the judgment in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 8/2021 (Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs. Satish Kumar Agarwal), decided on September 27, 2024, and in view of Circular 9 of 2024, dated September 17, 2024. The reasoning is that the appeal, in light of the circular and the cited precedent, is not a valid appeal to be adjudicated upon. The ratio decidendi is that appeals falling under the purview of Circular 9 of 2024, and covered by established coordinate bench judgments, are to be dismissed as non-maintainable. The proposed substantial questions of law were expressly kept open. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the notice dated March 27, 2024, issued under Section 148 and the assessment order dated March 23, 2025, passed under Section 147 of the Act, along with consequential proceedings, were liable to be quashed and set aside. The Court found the facts of the Gujarat High Court case (Talati and Talati LLP) to be entirely different from the present case. It noted that the Gujarat High Court's decision 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 the FAO. The Tribunal disagreed with this reasoning. The Court relied on the Bombay High Court's reasoning in Abhin Anilkumar Shah vs. Income Tax Officer, which considered CBDT orders dated March 31, 2021, and September 6, 2021, creating exceptions for assessment proceedings in Central and International Taxation charges. The Tribunal found that these orders were not incorporated into the faceless scheme notified on March 29, 2022. Consequently, the notice and assessment order were quashed. The revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited.

The High Court, acknowledging the learned counsel for the petitioner's request to withdraw the civil writ petition, dismissed the petition as withdrawn. The court did not delve into the merits of any underlying tax dispute or the validity of any assessment or order. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition as withdrawn. Any pending applications associated with the petition were also disposed of accordingly. No specific legal principles were established or applied, as the decision was based on the petitioner's procedural choice.

The High Court, upon being informed by the learned counsels for both the petitioner and the respondent that the controversy was no longer res integra and had been resolved by a Division Bench order dated November 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), ordered accordingly. This implies that the writ petition was disposed of in line with the precedent set by the earlier Division Bench judgment. The reasoning is based on the principle of judicial discipline and consistency, where a coordinate bench follows the decision of another coordinate bench on an identical issue. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in similar terms as the cited case. No specific issue was left undecided; rather, the entire matter was resolved based on the existing precedent.

The Rajasthan High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 and the assessment order dated March 28, 2025, passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential proceedings. The Court found the facts of the Gujarat High Court case (Talati and Talati LLP) to be entirely different from the present case. The Court disagreed with the reasoning of the Gujarat High Court, which relied on 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 the FAO. The Court 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, which dealt with CBDT orders creating exceptions for assessment proceedings in Central Charges and International Tax Charges. The Court held that the scheme notified on March 29, 2022, does not include or reference these earlier orders, and it would be doing violence to the language of the notification to read them into it. The Court also relied on the Telangana High Court's decision in Venkataramana Reddy Patloola. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice under Section 148 if the Apex Court interferes with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited.

The Rajasthan High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated 22.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that the facts of the Gujarat High Court case (Talati and Talati LLP) were entirely different from the present case. The Court distinguished the Gujarat High Court's reasoning, noting it was not based on a combined reading of the notification dated 29th March 2022 with earlier CBDT orders (dated 31st March 2021 and 06th September 2021), unlike the reasoning adopted by the Bombay High Court in Abhin Anilkumar Shah. The Court held that the Gujarat High Court's decision was based on a simpler reading of Explanation 2 to Section 148 and an understanding that FAO cannot fulfill the pre-requisites for issuing a Section 148 notice in search cases, a view with which the Rajasthan High Court respectfully disagreed. The Court also noted that the revenue had preferred a Special Leave Petition against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and sought liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court interfered with the relevant judgments. The Court granted this liberty and disposed of the petition.

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated March 19, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found the facts of the Gujarat High Court case (Talati and Talati LLP) to be entirely different from the present case. The Court noted that the Gujarat High Court's decision was based on a reading of Explanation 2 to Section 148 and an understanding that the prerequisites for issuing a notice under Section 148 in search cases could not be met by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The Rajasthan High Court, however, disagreed with this reasoning. The Court also referred to the Bombay High Court's decision in Abhin Anilkumar Shah, which distinguished the applicability of certain CBDT orders concerning exceptions to the faceless mechanism. The Court held that the judgment of the Gujarat High Court was not based on a comprehensive reading of the relevant notifications and orders. Consequently, the notice was liable to be quashed and set aside. The revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited.

The Tribunal held that the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Talati and Talati LLP was not based on a comprehensive reading of the notification dated March 29, 2022, along with earlier CBDT orders dated March 31, 2021, and September 6, 2021. Instead, it was based on a simpler 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 reasoning. It noted that the Bombay High Court in Abhin Anilkumar Shah vs. Income Tax Officer, International Tax Ward Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai, had held that CBDT orders creating exceptions for assessment proceedings in Central and International Tax charges did not alter the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. Consequently, the Tribunal found the notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148, and the assessment order dated March 23, 2025, passed under Section 147, along with consequential proceedings, to be liable for quashing and setting aside. The revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The petitioner undertook to withdraw the appeal filed.

The Rajasthan High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 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 and an understanding that the prerequisites for issuing a Section 148 notice in search cases could not be met by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). However, the Rajasthan High Court disagreed with this reasoning. The Court 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, which considered CBDT orders creating exceptions for assessment proceedings in Central and International Tax charges. The Bombay High Court in Abhin Anilkumar Shah held that these orders did not impact the scheme notified on 29th March 2022. The Rajasthan High Court concluded that the notice issued by the JAO was liable to be quashed. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited.