Rajasthan High Court Judgments — 2025

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 High Court, in terms of the agreement reached by the learned counsels for both the petitioner and the respondents, quashed and set aside the order dated 31.12.2020. Consequently, the matter was transferred to the Assessing Officer, Central Circle-2, Udaipur. The court did not delve into the merits of the original order or the grounds on which it was challenged. The decision was based on the consensus arrived at by the parties, leading to a procedural adjustment rather than a substantive ruling on the tax dispute itself. Any pending applications were also disposed of accordingly.

The High Court held that the mandate of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be strictly followed, and there cannot be a way to circumvent it. The Court 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 diminish its activation. 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 JAO's jurisdiction to issue them. The respondents were granted liberty to issue fresh notices in compliance with the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022, by keeping the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as the assessing officer. The time spent during the pendency of the litigation was to be excluded for computing the limitation for issuing fresh notices, if needed.

The High Court held that the mandate of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be strictly followed. It was observed that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) does not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, as this would weaken Section 151A and diminish its activation. 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. Therefore, the impugned notices issued by the JAO were quashed and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The court also held that circulars or instructions by the CBDT cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. The judgment stated that instructions and circulars can only be issued for supplementing statutory provisions and their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the Act. The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the notice dated 23.06.2025 and consequential orders, with liberty to the respondents to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The time spent during litigation was excluded for computing limitation for fresh notices.

The High Court, following its co-ordinate bench's decision in Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. and the order in Jasjit Singh, held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are liable to be quashed. The Court emphasized that the mandate of Section 151A of the Act, requiring adherence to an algorithm-based random assessing system for assessment and reassessment, must be strictly followed. The JAO lacks the jurisdiction to issue such notices, as it weakens Section 151A and undermines the legislative intent behind the faceless regime, which aims to enhance transparency and impartiality through technology. The Court reasoned that circulars and instructions cannot override statutory provisions, and any attempt to usurp legal provisions for convenience, causing hardship to assessees, is impermissible. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 26.03.2025 issued by the JAO 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 litigation was excluded for computing the limitation for fresh notices.

The Tribunal held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are liable to be quashed. This is because the scheme of faceless assessment, mandated by Section 151A of the Act and the relevant CBDT Circulars, requires automated allocation of cases based on algorithms and random assignment of assessing officers. The JAO does not have the jurisdiction to issue such notices, as doing so undermines Section 151A and the legislative intent to make the taxation system more transparent and impartial through technology. The Court followed the reasoning in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11787/2024 and CWP No.21509/2023, which held that instructions or circulars cannot override statutory provisions and that adherence to the algorithm-based random assessing system is mandatory. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 26.03.2025 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 excluded for computing the limitation for issuing fresh notices.

The High Court held that the reassessment notice issued on 24.08.2024 for AY 2015-16 was within the time limitation. The Court reasoned that while the original reassessment period had expired, the case involved a search conducted under Section 132 of the Act on 19.05.2023, and seized documents indicated escaped income for AY 2015-16. The Court referred to the First Proviso to Section 149 of the Act, which allows notice under Section 148 to be issued if it could have been issued under the old provisions of Section 153A and 153C. Prior to the amendment, in search cases, proceedings could be conducted for six assessment years, not later than ten years from the relevant assessment year. The Court found that the amended Section 149, read with provisions relating to search cases (Section 153A/153C), permits reassessment for up to ten years. The Court also noted that the escaped income was Rs. 1,51,47,831/-, exceeding the Rs. 50 Lakhs threshold. The Court did not go into the issue of territorial jurisdiction as it examined the case on merits and the revenue did not press the argument. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the mandate of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be strictly followed, and there cannot be a way out of adhering to it. The Court further held that a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) shall not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, as this would weaken Section 151A and lead to its diminishing activation. 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 issued by the JAO were quashed and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Court allowed the writ petition with liberty to the respondents to issue fresh notices in compliance with the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022, by keeping the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as the assessing officer. The time spent during the pendency of the litigation was excluded for computing the limitation for issuing fresh notices. The ratio is that notices issued under Section 148 without adhering to the faceless assessment scheme and algorithm-based random allocation are invalid.

The Tribunal held that the mandate of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be strictly followed. It was observed that the JAO does not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, as doing so weakens Section 151A and diminishes its activation. 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 for want of jurisdiction. The court allowed the respondents to issue fresh notices in compliance with the CBDT Notification dated March 29, 2022, by keeping the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as the assessing officer. The time spent during the pendency of the litigation was to be excluded for computing the limitation for issuing fresh notices, if needed. The judgment also referenced a prior decision by one of the judges while at the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which held that circulars or instructions cannot override statutory provisions and that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience.

The High Court, in agreement with the parties, decided that the present writ petition was squarely covered by the judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22164/2025 (M/s. Jagtamba Timber Mart Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax), decided on November 12, 2025. Consequently, 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, were quashed and set aside. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act in case the Apex Court interfered with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra), or Shree Cement Limited (supra). The petitioner undertook to withdraw the appeal already filed within two weeks, which was accepted. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision in M/s. Jagtamba Timber Mart, held that 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, were liable to be quashed and set aside. The court accepted the petitioner's undertaking to withdraw the appeal already filed. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the notice under Section 148 if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. All other grounds raised by the petitioner were not pressed and were left open to be taken up at an appropriate stage. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the prior order, and all pending applications were also disposed of.

The Tribunal, following the decision 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 interfered with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra), or Shree Cement Limited (supra). The petitioner's counsel undertook to withdraw the appeal already filed within two weeks. The court accepted the undertaking and disposed of the petition, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties. No other grounds were decided on merits.

The Tribunal, following the judgment of a coordinate Bench in M/s. Jagtamba Timber Mart Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, decided on November 12, 2025, 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 reasoning was that the controversy was squarely covered by the aforementioned judgment. The Tribunal granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice issued 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). The assessee undertook to withdraw an appeal already filed. All other grounds raised by the assessee were not pressed and were kept open for appropriate stages. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal, following the decision 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 issued under Section 148 of the Act if the Apex Court interferes with the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra), or Shree Cement Limited (supra). The petitioner's counsel undertook to withdraw the appeal already filed. The court kept open all rights and contentions of the parties. The petition was disposed of with the liberty granted. The ratio decidendi is that where a coordinate bench has decided a similar matter, and the revenue seeks liberty to revive proceedings based on potential future Supreme Court intervention, the proceedings can be quashed with such liberty reserved.

The High Court, in agreement with the parties, 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. This decision was based on the principle that the controversy was squarely covered by the judgment in M/s. Jagtamba Timber Mart (supra). 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 assessee undertook to withdraw an appeal already filed. The court kept open all rights and contentions of the parties. No other grounds were pressed by the assessee.

The Tribunal, following the judgment 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 issued under Section 148 of the Act in case the Apex Court interfered with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra), or Shree Cement Limited (supra). The petitioner undertook to withdraw the appeal already filed. All other grounds raised by the petitioner were not pressed and were kept open to be taken up at an appropriate stage. The petition was disposed of with the liberty as prayed for.

The Tribunal, following the judgment 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 issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court interfered with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra), or Shree Cement Limited (supra). The petitioner undertook to withdraw the appeal already filed. The Court accepted the undertaking and disposed of the petition, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties. The specific grounds for quashing the notice and assessment order were not detailed in this judgment but were stated to be covered by the prior ruling.

The High Court, in agreement with the parties, disposed of the present Writ Petition in terms of the order passed in M/s Jagtamba Timber Mart (supra). In that prior judgment, the notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Act, and the assessment order dated March 21, 2025, passed under Section 147 of the Act, along with consequential proceedings, were quashed and set aside. This was done with liberty granted to the Revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act if the Supreme 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 the appeal already filed within two weeks. The court accepted the undertaking and disposed of the petition, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.

The Tribunal, following the judgment 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 interfered with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra), or Shree Cement Limited (supra). The petitioner undertook to withdraw any appeal already filed within two weeks. All other grounds raised by the petitioner were not pressed and were kept open for consideration at an appropriate stage. The petition was disposed of with the liberty as prayed.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision in M/s. Jagtamba Timber Mart, 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 if the Apex Court interfered with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The petitioner undertook to withdraw an appeal already filed. The Court accepted the undertaking and disposed of the petition, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the matter was disposed of based on the agreed precedent and undertakings.

The Tribunal, following the judgment in M/s. Jagtamba Timber Mart Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, decided that 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, were liable to be quashed and set aside. 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., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The petitioner undertook to withdraw any appeal already filed within two weeks. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the aforementioned order, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties. No other grounds were pressed by the petitioner.

The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the notice dated 30.04.2024 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and all consequential orders. The Court followed the decision in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11787/2024, holding that the mandate of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be strictly followed. The Court reiterated that the JAO does not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, as this weakens Section 151A and leads to diminishing activation. 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. The Court also referred to an earlier decision by one of its judges which held that circulars or instructions cannot override statutory provisions and that faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B must be conducted. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The time spent during the litigation was to be excluded for computing the limitation for issuing fresh notices.

The Tribunal, following the judgment of a coordinate bench in M/s. Jagtamba Timber Mart Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (decided on 12.11.2025), 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 of the Act if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The petitioner's counsel undertook to withdraw the appeal already filed. The court accepted the undertaking and disposed of the petition, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties. No specific issue was left undecided, as the matter was disposed of based on the precedent and the undertaking.

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 parties as prayed for by the revenue. Specifically, the revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice issued 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). The petitioner's counsel undertook to withdraw the appeal already filed. The court kept open all rights and contentions of the parties. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The High Court, in agreement with the parties, disposed of the writ petition in terms of the order passed in M/s Jagtamba Timber Mart (supra). 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, were quashed and set aside. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court interfered with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra), or Shree Cement Limited (supra). The petitioner undertook to withdraw the appeal already filed within two weeks. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. The petition was disposed of, and consequently, all pending applications were also disposed of.

The High Court, in agreement with the parties, decided that the controversy was squarely covered by a previous judgment of a coordinate Bench. Consequently, 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, were quashed and set aside. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice under Section 148 if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the cited judgments. The petitioner undertook to withdraw any appeal already filed. The Court kept open all rights and contentions of the parties. The other grounds raised by the petitioner were not pressed at that stage.

The High Court, following the judgment 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 issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court interfered with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra), or Shree Cement Limited (supra). The petitioner undertook to withdraw the appeal already filed. The Court accepted the undertaking and disposed of the petition, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties. No specific issue was left undecided, but the operative part was conditional on future Supreme Court pronouncements.

The High Court, following the judgment in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.22164/2025 (M/s. Jagtamba Timber Mart Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax), decided on November 12, 2025, 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 if the Apex Court interfered with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra), or Shree Cement Limited (supra). The petitioner's counsel undertook to withdraw the appeal already filed within two weeks. The Court accepted the undertaking and disposed of the petition, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties. No specific issue was left undecided, as the matter was disposed of based on the precedent.

The Tribunal, following the judgment of a coordinate bench in M/s. Jagtamba Timber Mart Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, decided that 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, were liable to be quashed and set aside. The court quashed and set aside these proceedings. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the notice under Section 148 of the Act if the Apex Court interfered with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra), or Shree Cement Limited (supra). The petitioner undertook to withdraw the appeal already filed. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

The High Court held that the mandate of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be strictly followed. It was observed that the JAO does not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, as doing so weakens Section 151A and diminishes its activation. The court ruled 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 issued by the JAO were quashed and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The court also held that CBDT 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 required, in compliance with the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022, by keeping the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as the assessing officer. The present writ petition was allowed in these terms, quashing the notice dated 28.06.2025 and all consequential orders.

The Tribunal, following the judgment in M/s. Jagtamba Timber Mart, 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 kept open all rights and contentions of the parties. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act in case the Apex Court interfered with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The petitioner undertook to withdraw the appeal already filed. The petition was disposed of in terms of the order passed in M/s Jagtamba Timber Mart, with pending applications also disposed of.

The High Court disagreed with the Revenue's contention that jurisdictional issues cannot be raised at any stage. The Court found merit in the assessee's argument, relying on the judgment in Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another, which was passed by a Coordinate Bench. This judgment, in turn, relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax. The Court acknowledged that the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment was under challenge before the Supreme Court. However, based on the law as it stood, the Court quashed the notice dated 13th March, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Act. The Court also clarified that the petitioner did not press other grounds. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties, with liberty granted to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the relevant precedents.

The High Court held that the mandate of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be strictly followed. It was observed that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act are invalid as they do not adhere to the algorithm-based random assessing system envisaged by the faceless regime. The Court found that the JAO does not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148, as doing so weakens Section 151A and diminishes its activation. The reasoning relied on the legislative intent to infuse technology for efficiency, transparency, and impartiality in the taxation system. The impugned notice dated 12.06.2025 issued by the JAO and all consequential orders were quashed and set aside. The Court granted liberty to the respondents to issue fresh notices in compliance with the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022, keeping the Facilitation Assessing Officer (FAO) as the assessing officer. The time spent during the pendency of the litigation was to be excluded for computing the limitation for issuing fresh notices. The ratio is that any deviation from the mandatory algorithm-based random allocation system for assessment and reassessment notices renders them invalid for want of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated March 28, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the assessment order dated March 24, 2025, passed under Section 147 of the Act, 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. It noted that the Gujarat High Court's reasoning was based on a 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 Court 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 and International Tax Charges did not override the faceless scheme. The Court emphasized that the scheme notified on March 29, 2022, did not include or reference these earlier orders. 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 held that the notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 and the assessment order dated March 21, 2025, passed under Section 147, 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. The Court distinguished the Gujarat High Court's reasoning, noting it was based on a 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 an FAO. The Court disagreed with this reasoning, referencing the Bombay High Court's judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and Abhin Anilkumar Shah, which dealt with exceptions to the faceless regime and the interpretation of CBDT orders. The Court found that reading exceptions into the scheme dated March 29, 2022, which were not expressly provided for, would be doing violence to the language of the notification. 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 agreed to withdraw the appeal already filed.

The Tribunal held that the notice dated March 29, 2023, issued under Section 148 and the assessment order dated March 30, 2024, 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. The Tribunal noted that the Gujarat High Court's decision was not based on a reading of the notification dated March 29, 2022, along with earlier CBDT orders (March 31, 2021/September 06, 2021), unlike the Bombay High Court's reasoning in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and Abhin Anilkumar Shah. The Tribunal 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 quashed the 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 undertook to withdraw a previously filed appeal.

The Rajasthan High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 28, 2024, issued under Section 148 and the assessment order dated March 12, 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 was based on a reading of Explanation 2 to Section 148 without considering the impact of CBDT orders dated March 31, 2021, and September 6, 2021, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Abhin Anilkumar Shah. The Bombay High Court in Abhin Anilkumar Shah had held that these CBDT orders carved out exceptions to the faceless mechanism for assessment proceedings in Central Charges and International Tax Charges, and that reading these exceptions into the March 29, 2022 scheme would be doing violence to its language. The Rajasthan High Court found that the Gujarat High Court's judgment was not based on a comprehensive reading of the relevant notifications and orders. The Court also noted that the Revenue had preferred a Special Leave Petition against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment. 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. The petitioner undertook to withdraw the appeal already filed.

The Tribunal held that the notice dated March 27, 2024, issued under Section 148 and the assessment order dated March 26, 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. The Court disagreed with the Gujarat High Court's reasoning, which was based on a reading of Explanation 2 to Section 148 and the understanding that pre-requisites for issuing a Section 148 notice in search cases could not be met by an FAO. The Court 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 Central Charges. The Court emphasized that the scheme notified on March 29, 2022, did not include references to earlier orders creating exceptions. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice under Section 148 if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The petitioner stated that other grounds were not being pressed.

The Tribunal held that the notice dated March 28, 2024, issued under Section 148 and the assessment order dated March 13, 2025, passed under Section 147, 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 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, however, disagreed with this reasoning. The Court also referred to the Bombay High Court's decision in Abhin Anilkumar Shah vs. Income Tax Officer, International Tax Ward Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai, which dealt with exceptions to the faceless mechanism for Central Charges and International Tax Charges, and found that the Gujarat High Court was not made aware of this reasoning. The operative direction was to quash and set aside the notice and assessment order, with 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. The petitioner undertook to withdraw the appeal filed.

The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur quashed and set aside the notice dated 15.02.2024 issued under Section 148 and the assessment order dated 18.03.2025 passed under Section 147, 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 noted that the Gujarat High Court's reasoning 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 reasoning, finding it not based on a comprehensive reading of the relevant notifications and orders, particularly in light of the Bombay High Court's decisions in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and Abhin Anilkumar Shah, which dealt with exceptions to the faceless regime. The Court held that the notice issued by the JAO was invalid. 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 and disposed of the petition.

The Tribunal held that the notice dated March 30, 2024, issued under Section 148 and the assessment order dated March 26, 2025, passed under Section 147 of the Act, along with consequential proceedings, were liable to be quashed and set aside. 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 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 CBDT orders dated March 31, 2021, and September 6, 2021. The Court 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 the aforementioned CBDT orders only carved out exceptions for assessment proceedings and did not alter the applicability of the faceless mechanism in the manner suggested by the Gujarat High Court. The Court also accepted the petitioner's submission that other grounds were not pressed, and the revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court interfered with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The petition was disposed of with liberty as prayed.

The Tribunal held that the notice dated February 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 and the assessment order dated March 24, 2025, passed under Section 147, 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 pre-requisites for issuing notice under Section 148 in search cases could not be met by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The Tribunal disagreed with this reasoning, referencing the Bombay High Court's decision in Abhin Anilkumar Shah vs. Income Tax Officer, International Tax Ward Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai, which dealt with exceptions to the faceless mechanism and found that the scheme notified on March 29, 2022, did not include or reference prior orders creating exceptions. The Court quashed the notice and assessment order, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties, with liberty granted as prayed. The revenue was given liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court interfered with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited.

The Tribunal held that the notice dated March 24, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Act and the assessment order dated March 21, 2024, 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 reasoning was based on a 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 the FAO. The Tribunal disagreed with this reasoning, referencing the Bombay High Court's decision 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 Tribunal found that the scheme notified on March 29, 2022, did not include these exceptions and reading them into the scheme would be doing violence to its language. The Court quashed the notice and assessment order with liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court overturns the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited.

The Rajasthan High Court 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 25, 2025, passed under Section 147 of the Act, 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 Gujarat High Court's reasoning, stating it was not based on a reading of the notification dated March 29, 2022, along with earlier CBDT orders dated March 31, 2021, and September 6, 2021. The Court 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 these earlier CBDT orders carved out exceptions only for assessment proceedings and were not incorporated into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The Court found the Gujarat High Court's decision to be based on a simple reading of Explanation 2 to Section 148 and an understanding that FAOs cannot fulfill the pre-requisites for issuing notices in search cases, which the Rajasthan High Court respectfully disagreed with. 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 a previously filed appeal.

The Tribunal quashed and set aside 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. 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, which was based on a reading of Explanation 2 to Section 148 and an understanding that pre-requisites for Section 148 notices in search cases could not be met by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The Rajasthan High Court, referencing Bombay High Court judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and Abhin Anilkumar Shah, and Telangana High Court's Venkataramana Reddy Patloola, held that the scheme notified on March 29, 2022, did not include exceptions for orders dated March 31, 2021, and September 6, 2021, which were relied upon by the Gujarat High Court. 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. The petitioner agreed to withdraw the appeal filed.

The Tribunal held that the notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the assessment order dated March 26, 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 present case to be entirely different from the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Talati and Talati LLP. The Court noted that the Gujarat High Court's decision was based on an understanding that the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) does not draw a satisfaction note before issuing a notice under Section 148 in search cases and that pre-requisite conditions under Explanation 2 to Section 148 cannot be fulfilled by an algorithm. However, the Rajasthan High Court disagreed with this reasoning, referencing the Bombay High Court's decision in Abhin Anilkumar Shah, which dealt with CBDT orders creating exceptions for assessment proceedings in Central and International Taxation charges. The Court found that the Gujarat High Court was not made aware of the reasoning in Abhin Anilkumar Shah, which held that the e-assessment scheme notification did not include or reference these exceptions. The Court concluded that the Gujarat High Court's judgment was not based on a reading of the notification along with the CBDT orders, but solely on Explanation 2 to Section 148 and the understanding of FAO's role in search cases, a view the Tribunal respectfully disagreed with. The revenue sought liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court interfered with the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, which was granted. The petitioner stated other grounds were not pressed. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with the notice and assessment order quashed and set aside, with liberty granted to the revenue.

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated February 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 facts of the Gujarat High Court case (Talati and Talati LLP) were 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, and September 6, 2021). The Court 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 the faceless scheme did not include exceptions mentioned in those earlier orders. The Court concluded that the Gujarat High Court's judgment was based on a limited 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 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 withdrew other grounds.

The High Court held that the notice dated February 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 and the assessment order dated March 27, 2025, passed under Section 147, 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. The Court disagreed with the Gujarat High Court's reasoning, stating it was not based on a reading of the notification dated March 29, 2022, along with earlier CBDT orders (March 31, 2021, and September 6, 2021), unlike the Bombay High Court's reasoning in Abhin Anilkumar Shah. The Court noted that the Gujarat High Court's decision was based on a simple reading of Explanation 2 to Section 148 and an understanding that FAO cannot meet the pre-requisites for issuing a Section 148 notice in search cases. The Court quashed the notice and assessment order, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties, with liberty as prayed by 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 previously filed appeal.