Loading High Court cases…
1,247 orders · Page 5 of 25
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.
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 Court noted that the issue raised in the writ petitions 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., decided on 19.03.2025. This judgment held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Act by the JAO are invalid as they do not withstand the broader scheme of law requiring 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 the JAO lacks the jurisdiction to issue such notices. Consequently, the impugned notices were quashed. The Court also referred to another decision in CWP No.21509/2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.) which reiterated that circulars or instructions cannot override statutory provisions. However, in the present cases, since appeals had been preferred against the final orders, the Court directed the petitioners to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) to take into consideration the previous judgments and pass appropriate orders within 15 days. The writ petitions were disposed of with this direction.
The Court noted that the issue raised in the writ petitions 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., decided on 19.03.2025. This judgment held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Act by the JAO are invalid as they do not withstand the broader scheme of law requiring 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 the JAO lacks the jurisdiction to issue such notices. Consequently, the impugned notices were quashed. The Court also referred to another decision in CWP No.21509/2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.) which reiterated that circulars or instructions cannot override statutory provisions. However, in the present cases, since appeals had been preferred against the final orders, the Court directed the petitioners to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) to take into consideration the previous judgments and pass appropriate orders within 15 days. The writ petitions were disposed of with this direction.
The Court noted that the issue raised in the writ petitions 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., decided on 19.03.2025. This judgment held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Act by the JAO are invalid as they do not withstand the broader scheme of law requiring 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 the JAO lacks the jurisdiction to issue such notices. Consequently, the impugned notices were quashed. The Court also referred to another decision in CWP No.21509/2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.) which reiterated that circulars or instructions cannot override statutory provisions. However, in the present cases, since appeals had been preferred against the final orders, the Court directed the petitioners to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) to take into consideration the previous judgments and pass appropriate orders within 15 days. The writ petitions were disposed of with this direction.
The Court noted that the issue raised in the writ petitions 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., 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. The Court emphasized that Section 151A of the Act must be strictly followed, and the JAO lacks jurisdiction to issue such notices, which would weaken Section 151A. The Court in Sharda Devi Chhajer quashed the impugned notices, with liberty to issue fresh notices in compliance with the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022, keeping the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as the assessing officer. The time spent during litigation was to be excluded for limitation purposes. The present Court also referred to a decision by one of its judges in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., which agreed with the principle that circulars cannot override statutory provisions and that proceedings initiated by JAO without conducting faceless assessment are contrary to the Act. However, given that appeals were preferred against final orders, the Court directed the petitioners to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) to take into consideration the judgments quashing proceedings based on notices issued by the JAO.
The Court noted that the issue raised in the writ petitions 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., 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. The Court emphasized that Section 151A of the Act must be strictly followed, and the JAO lacks jurisdiction to issue such notices, which would weaken Section 151A. The Court in Sharda Devi Chhajer quashed the impugned notices, with liberty to issue fresh notices in compliance with the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022, keeping the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as the assessing officer. The time spent during litigation was to be excluded for limitation purposes. The present Court also referred to a decision by one of its judges in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., which agreed with the principle that circulars cannot override statutory provisions and that proceedings initiated by JAO without conducting faceless assessment are contrary to the Act. However, given that appeals were preferred against final orders, the Court directed the petitioners to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) to take into consideration the judgments quashing proceedings based on notices issued by the JAO.
The Court noted that the issue raised in the writ petitions 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., 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. The Court emphasized that Section 151A of the Act must be strictly followed, and the JAO lacks jurisdiction to issue such notices, which would weaken Section 151A. The Court in Sharda Devi Chhajer quashed the impugned notices, with liberty to issue fresh notices in compliance with the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022, keeping the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as the assessing officer. The time spent during litigation was to be excluded for limitation purposes. The present Court also referred to a decision by one of its judges in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., which agreed with the principle that circulars cannot override statutory provisions and that proceedings initiated by JAO without conducting faceless assessment are contrary to the Act. However, given that appeals were preferred against final orders, the Court directed the petitioners to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) to take into consideration the judgments quashing proceedings based on notices issued by the JAO.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated March 26, 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 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, which relied on Explanation 2 to Section 148 and the understanding that pre-requisites for issuing a notice under Section 148 in search cases could not be met by the FAO, was respectfully disagreed with. The Court noted that the Gujarat High Court was not made aware of the Bombay High Court's reasoning in Abhin Anilkumar Shah, which held that CBDT orders creating exceptions for assessment proceedings in Central Charges and International Tax Charges did not extend to the faceless assessment scheme notified on March 29, 2022. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's dismissal of an SLP against a Telangana High Court order based on Venkataramana Reddy Patloola, which followed similar reasoning, 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 Court noted that the issue raised in the writ petitions 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., decided on 19.03.2025. This judgment held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Act by the JAO are invalid as they do not withstand the broader scheme of law requiring 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 the JAO lacks the jurisdiction to issue such notices. Consequently, the impugned notices were quashed. The Court also referred to another decision in CWP No.21509/2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.) which reiterated that circulars or instructions cannot override statutory provisions. However, in the present cases, since appeals had been preferred against the final orders, the Court directed the petitioners to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) to take into consideration the previous judgments and pass appropriate orders within 15 days. The writ petitions were disposed of with this direction.
The Tribunal held that notices issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are invalid as they do not comply with the broader scheme of law requiring automated allocation based on algorithms and random assignment of assessing officers. The Court referred to its previous decision in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11787/2024, which emphasized that the mandate of Section 151A of the Act must be strictly followed. Issuing notices under Section 148 by a JAO weakens Section 151A and undermines the legislative intent to promote transparency and impartiality through technology. The Court reiterated that any attempt to manually control or circumvent the technology-driven faceless regime is against the legislative purpose. Consequently, the impugned notice dated June 12, 2025, and all consequential orders passed on its basis were quashed and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The respondents were granted liberty to issue fresh notices in compliance with the CBDT Notification dated March 29, 2022, by keeping the 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 Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) were contrary to the provisions of the Act and the faceless regime. The Court relied on its previous decisions in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11787/2024 (Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. Vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr.) and the order in CWP No.21509/2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.). It was reasoned that Section 151A of the Act mandates adherence to an algorithm-based random assessing system, and the JAO lacks the jurisdiction to issue such notices, which would weaken Section 151A. The Court acknowledged that while the notices and subsequent proceedings were flawed, appeals had been preferred against the final orders, making it inappropriate to make those appeals redundant. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioners to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) for appropriate orders within 15 days, considering the judgments quashing proceedings based on notices issued by the JAO. The writ petitions were disposed of with this direction.
The Tribunal held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are invalid and deserve to be quashed. The Court reasoned that the mandate of Section 151A of the Act, which requires adherence to an algorithm-based random assessing system for assessment and reassessment under Sections 147, 148, and 148A, must be strictly followed. Issuing notices by the JAO would weaken Section 151A and potentially lead to its diminished activation. The Court emphasized that legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily, and circulars or instructions cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. The Court further held that the JAO does not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148, as it goes against the scheme of faceless assessment envisaged under Section 144B and the legislative intent for transparency and impartiality through technology. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 18.06.2025 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 to be excluded for computing the limitation for fresh notices.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated March 26, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the controversy was squarely covered by a previous judgment of a co-ordinate bench in Jaskaran Singh Brar Vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Jaipur & Ors. The Tribunal distinguished the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Talati and Talati LLP, noting that its facts were entirely different and that it was not based on the combined reading of the notification dated March 29, 2022, with earlier CBDT orders dated March 31, 2021, and September 6, 2021. The Tribunal agreed with the reasoning in Abhin Anilkumar Shah and the Bombay High Court's approach in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which was further supported by the Supreme Court's dismissal of an SLP against a Telangana High Court order. The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the JAO was liable to be 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. Other grounds raised by the petitioner were not pressed and were left open for appropriate stages.
The High Court held that the notice dated March 26, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was liable to be quashed and set aside. The Court found that the controversy was squarely covered by its previous judgment in Jaskaran Singh Brar Vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Jaipur & Ors. The reasoning in Jaskaran Singh Brar indicated that the Gujarat High Court's decision in Talati and Talati LLP was distinguishable because it was based on a narrow interpretation of Explanation 2 to Section 148 and an incorrect understanding that the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) does not draw a satisfaction note in search cases. The Court also noted that the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. was distinguished as applying to Explanation 1, not Explanation 2, of Section 148. The Supreme Court's dismissal of an SLP against a Telangana High Court order further supported this view. 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 did not press other grounds.
The Tribunal held that the mandate of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be strictly followed. Notices issued under Section 148 of the Act by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) are invalid because they do not adhere to the algorithm-based random assessing system envisaged by the faceless regime. The JAO does not have the jurisdiction to issue such notices, as it weakens Section 151A and diminishes its activation. The legislative intent behind introducing technology, including artificial intelligence and machine learning, for randomized allocation of cases is to enhance efficiency, transparency, and impartiality. Any attempt to circumvent this technological mandate through local control or manual intervention is against the legislative purpose. Consequently, the impugned notices issued by the JAO were quashed and set aside. The respondents were granted liberty to issue fresh notices in compliance with the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022, by keeping the Facilitation Centre as the assessing officer. The time spent during the pendency of the litigation was excluded for computing the limitation for issuance of fresh notices.
The Tribunal held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are invalid. This is because the scheme of faceless assessment, as mandated by Section 151A of the Act and CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022, requires automated allocation of cases based on algorithms and random assignment. The JAO issuing such notices undermines the legislative intent of transparency, impartiality, and efficiency, and renders Section 151A weak. The Court relied on its previous decisions in Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. Vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr. and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. The impugned notice dated 12.06.2025 issued by the JAO and all consequential orders were quashed and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The respondents were granted liberty to issue fresh notices in compliance with the CBDT Notification, keeping the FAO as the assessing officer. The time spent during the litigation was excluded for computing the limitation for fresh notices.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated March 27, 2023, issued under Section 148 and the assessment order dated March 30, 2024, 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 in Talati and Talati LLP, stating it was not based on a reading of the notification dated March 29, 2022, along with earlier CBDT orders, but on a simpler reading of Explanation 2 to Section 148 and the understanding that FAO cannot meet pre-requisites for Section 148 notices in search cases. The Court noted 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 reasoning adopted by the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and Abhin Anilkumar Shah. 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 withdrew other grounds. The petition was disposed of with the quashing of the notice and assessment order.
The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) are not valid when the faceless assessment regime, mandating algorithm-based random allocation, is in place. The Court referred to its previous decision in Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. Vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr., which held that the mandate of Section 151A of the Act must be strictly followed. The JAO lacks the jurisdiction to issue such notices, as it weakens Section 151A and undermines the legislative intent of transparency and impartiality through technology. The Court reiterated that adherence to the algorithm-based random assessing system is necessary for assessments and reassessments under Sections 147, 148, and 148A, in light of the sanction under Section 151A. Consequently, the impugned notices 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 Facilitation Centre as the assessing officer. The time spent during the litigation was excluded for computing the limitation for fresh notices. The judgment also cited a previous order by one of the judges in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., which held that circulars or instructions cannot override statutory provisions and that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience.
The Tribunal held that the notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 and the assessment order dated March 7, 2025, passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential proceedings, are 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 an understanding that the 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 require human application of mind, not an algorithm. However, the Tribunal 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 held that CBDT orders creating exceptions for assessment proceedings in Central Charges did not negate the applicability of the faceless regime. Furthermore, the Supreme Court had dismissed the Revenue's SLP against the Telangana High Court's order in Venkataramana Reddy Patloola, which was based on similar reasoning. Therefore, the Tribunal disagreed with the Gujarat High Court's conclusion. The petitioner's counsel stated that other grounds were not being pressed, and the revenue requested 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, quashing the notice and assessment order, with liberty as prayed.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 and the assessment order dated March 11, 2025, passed under Section 147, along with consequential proceedings. The Tribunal found the facts of the Gujarat High Court case (Talati and Talati LLP) to be entirely different from the present case. The Tribunal disagreed with the reasoning of the Gujarat High Court, 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 a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The Tribunal noted that the Bombay High Court in Abhin Anilkumar Shah had distinguished cases falling under Explanation 1 from those under Explanation 2, and that the Supreme Court had dismissed an SLP against a Telangana High Court order in Venkataramana Reddy Patloola, which was based on similar reasoning. The Tribunal concluded that the notice issued by the JAO was liable to be 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 petitioner stated that other grounds were not being pressed at this stage.
The Rajasthan High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 and the assessment order dated March 6, 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 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 Section 148 notice in search cases could not be met by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The Court respectfully disagreed with this reasoning. The Court also considered 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 negate the applicability of the faceless scheme. Crucially, the Supreme Court had dismissed an SLP against a Telangana High Court order in Venkataramana Reddy Patloola, which was based on similar reasoning as the Bombay High Court's. 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 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 and the assessment order dated March 9, 2025, passed under Section 147, 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 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 cannot be met by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The Rajasthan High Court disagreed with this reasoning. The Court also referred to the Bombay High Court's decision in Abhin Anilkumar Shah, which 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. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's dismissal of an SLP against a Telangana High Court order in Venkataramana Reddy Patloola, which was based on similar reasoning, supported the petitioner's stance. The revenue sought liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, which was granted. The petitioner stated other grounds were not being pressed and would be taken up later. The Court quashed the notice and assessment order with liberty as prayed.
The Tribunal held that the notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 and the assessment order dated March 17, 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 noted that the Gujarat High Court's reasoning, which relied on Explanation 2 to Section 148 and the understanding that pre-requisite conditions for issuing a Section 148 notice in search cases cannot be met by the FAO, was not agreed with by the Tribunal. The Tribunal emphasized that the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. was not distinguished as per the Gujarat High Court's understanding, and that the Gujarat High Court was not made aware of the reasoning in Abhin Anilkumar Shah vs. Income Tax Officer, International Tax Ward Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai. The Tribunal also took note of the Supreme Court's dismissal of an SLP against a Telangana High Court order in Venkataramana Reddy Patloola. The Court quashed and set aside the notice and assessment order, 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 the appeal filed.
The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur quashed and set aside the notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 and the assessment order dated March 12, 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 reasoning that the pre-requisites for issuing a notice under Section 148 in search cases cannot be met by the Faceless Assessing Officer (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 held that CBDT orders creating exceptions for assessment proceedings in Central Charges and International Tax Charges did not alter the faceless scheme. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's dismissal of an SLP against a Telangana High Court order in Venkataramana Reddy Patloola, which was based on similar 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 petitioner agreed to withdraw the appeal filed. The court kept open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 and the assessment order dated March 10, 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 reasoning of the Gujarat High Court, which was based on a reading of Explanation 2 to Section 148 and the belief that the prerequisites for issuing a Section 148 notice in search cases could not be met by an FAO. The Court noted that the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and Abhin Anilkumar Shah, and the Telangana High Court in Venkataramana Reddy Patloola, had taken a different view. The dismissal of the Revenue's SLP by the Supreme Court in the Telangana High Court case further supported this stance. 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 filed.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated March 27, 2024, issued under Section 148, and the assessment order dated March 17, 2025, passed under Section 147, along with consequential proceedings. The Tribunal 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 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 Tribunal respectfully disagreed with this view. The Tribunal also considered the Bombay High Court's decision in Abhin Anilkumar Shah, which dealt with exceptions to the faceless mechanism for assessment proceedings in Central Charges and International Tax Charges, and noted that the Gujarat High Court was not made aware of this reasoning. Furthermore, the Tribunal took note of the Supreme Court's dismissal of an SLP against a Telangana High Court order based on Venkataramana Reddy Patloola, which was similar to the reasoning in Abhin Anilkumar Shah. The Tribunal 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 filed.
The Tribunal held that the notice dated March 26, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be quashed and set aside. The Tribunal found that the facts of the present case were squarely covered by the judgment of a co-ordinate bench in Jaskaran Singh Brar Vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Jaipur & Ors. The Tribunal agreed with the reasoning that the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Talati and Talati LLP was based on a different understanding of the facts and the law, particularly concerning the applicability of Explanation 2 to Section 148 in search cases. The Tribunal noted that the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held notices issued by JAOs invalid, was distinguished by the Gujarat High Court. However, the Tribunal found 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 Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment. The Tribunal quashed the notice with liberty to the revenue to revive it if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The petitioner did not press other grounds.
The Tribunal held that the notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 and the assessment order dated March 10, 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 noted that the Gujarat High Court's reasoning was based on a reading of Explanation 2 to Section 148 (as it existed) and an understanding that a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) might not be able to fulfill the pre-requisites for issuing a Section 148 notice in search cases. However, the Court disagreed with this reasoning. The Court also highlighted 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 regime for Central Charges. Furthermore, the Supreme Court had dismissed an SLP against a Telangana High Court order in Venkataramana Reddy Patloola, which was based on similar reasoning. The Court quashed the proceedings 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 Tribunal held that the notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 and the assessment order dated March 6, 2025, passed under Section 147 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 Court noted that the Gujarat High Court's decision was based on an understanding that the pre-requisite conditions for issuing a notice under Section 148 in search cases could not be met by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which the Tribunal disagreed with. The Tribunal relied on the reasoning in Abhin Anilkumar Shah vs. Income Tax Officer, International Tax Ward Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai, which clarified that CBDT orders creating exceptions to the faceless mechanism did not extend to the scheme notified on March 29, 2022, in the manner suggested by the Gujarat High Court. Furthermore, the dismissal of the Revenue's SLP against a similar Telangana High Court order (Venkataramana Reddy Patloola) by the Supreme Court lent support to the petitioner's contention. The Court quashed the notice and assessment order, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties, 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 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. The reasoning is based on the mandate of Section 151A of the Act, which requires adherence to an algorithm-based random assessing system for assessment and reassessment under Sections 147, 148, and 148A. The Court observed that the legislative intent behind introducing technology, including artificial intelligence and machine learning, for randomized allocations of cases was to enhance efficiency, transparency, and impartiality in the taxation system. Allowing local control to prejudice common men undermines this legislative wisdom. The JAO does not have the jurisdiction to issue such notices, as it weakens Section 151A. The impugned notice dated 12.06.2025 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 Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as the assessing officer. The time spent during the litigation was to be excluded for computing the limitation for issuing fresh notices.
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, 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 reasoning of the Gujarat High Court, stating it was not based on a reading of the notification dated March 29, 2022, along with earlier CBDT orders, but rather on a simple 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 noted that the Gujarat High Court was not made aware of the reasoning in the Bombay High Court's decision in Abhin Anilkumar Shah, which dealt with exceptions to the faceless mechanism. Furthermore, the Supreme Court had dismissed an SLP against a Telangana High Court order based on the reasoning in Venkataramana Reddy Patloola. The revenue sought liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court interfered with the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and the petitioner agreed to withdraw the appeal, with the court keeping open all rights and contentions. The petition was disposed of with the notice and assessment order quashed and set aside, with liberty as prayed.
The Tribunal held that the benefit of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is available to Regional Rural Banks (RRBs). The reasoning was based on Section 22 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, which deems RRBs as co-operative societies for the purposes of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that in the absence of a non-obstante clause in the relevant legislation or the CBDT Circular, the restrictive condition imposed by CBDT Circular No. 06/2010 would not alter the pre-existing situation. Consequently, RRBs would continue to be treated as co-operative societies and remain eligible for the benefits flowing from Section 80P. The appeal was dismissed based on this finding, applying the principle established in the case of PCIT Ajmer V/s M/s Bhilwara Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd.
The Rajasthan High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 26, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 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 Gujarat High Court's reasoning, which relied on Explanation 2 to Section 148 and the understanding that pre-requisite conditions for issuing a notice in search cases could not be met by an FAO, was not agreed with by the Rajasthan High Court. The Court noted that the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. was distinguished, and the Supreme Court had dismissed an SLP against a Telangana High Court order based on similar reasoning. The Court also took note of the fact that the Gujarat High Court was not made aware of the Bombay High Court's decision in Abhin Anilkumar Shah, which dealt with exceptions to the faceless mechanism. The petition was disposed of 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. 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 21, 2025, passed under Section 147 of the Act. The Court found the facts of the Gujarat High Court case (Talati and Talati LLP) to be entirely different from the present case. The Gujarat High Court's reasoning was based on 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 Tribunal 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, 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 based on the reasoning in Venkataramana Reddy Patloola, which aligned with the Bombay High Court's view. The Tribunal concluded that the notice and assessment order were liable to be 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 Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT (Appeals) and held that Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not applicable to payments made to VFPMCs for plantation and forestation. The reasoning was based on CBDT Circular No. 502 dated January 27, 1988, which exempts certain scheme payments from TDS under Section 194C. Furthermore, the Tribunal relied on its own prior decision in ITO, TDS Ajmer Vs. Divisional Forest Officer, Ajmer (ITA No. 358-360/JP/2023), which had held similar payments to VFPMCs as not being contract payments, thereby not attracting Section 194C. The Revenue had not filed an appeal against this precedent. The High Court noted that appeals against further orders by the Tribunal in similar matters were dismissed by the High Court on the ground of valuation. Finding no further question of law and deeming the appeal devoid of merit, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The Tribunal's decision, which upheld the CIT (Appeals)'s finding that Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not applicable to payments made to VFPMCs for plantation and forestation, was affirmed. The reasoning was based on the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 502 dated 27.01.1988, which exempts certain schemes from TDS provisions under Section 194C. Furthermore, the High Court noted a prior decision by the ITAT, Jaipur Bench, in the case of ITO, TDS Ajmer Vs. Divisional Forest Officer, Ajmer (ITA No.358-360/JP/2023), which had already settled the issue by holding that payments relating to VFPMCs are not to be treated as contract payments and therefore Section 194C is not attracted. The High Court also observed that appeals against further orders in similar matters were dismissed by it on valuation grounds. No further substantial question of law was found to be made out, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as devoid of merit.
The Tribunal held that the notice dated March 26, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is 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 reasoning that the pre-requisites for issuing a notice under Section 148 in search cases cannot be met by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), as was understood in the Gujarat High Court judgment. The Court noted that the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. was distinguished as applying to Explanation 1 to Section 148, not Explanation 2. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's dismissal of an SLP against a Telangana High Court order based on similar reasoning, which supported the assessee's position. The petitioner stated that other grounds were not being pressed. 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 the same terms as the Jaskaran Singh Brar judgment.
The High Court found that the grievance of the petitioner(s) had become academic as the return of income had been accepted by the department. Consequently, the Court closed the proceedings and disposed of all the petitions as having become otiose. The Court clarified that the questions raised in other petitions would not be affected by the disposal of these petitions. The operative direction was to dispose of the petitions as otiose.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the notice dated January 23, 2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and all consequential orders passed on that basis. The Court followed the precedent set by its coordinate bench in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11787/2024. The reasoning was that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a JAO, without adhering to the algorithm-based random assessing system mandated by Section 151A of the Act and the faceless assessment scheme, are invalid. The Court held that the mandate of Section 151A must be strictly followed, and JAOs do not have the jurisdiction to issue such notices, as it weakens the purpose of Section 151A and undermines legislative wisdom aimed at transparency and impartiality through technology. The Court also noted that time spent during litigation would be excluded for computing limitation for issuing fresh notices, if needed, in compliance with CBDT Notification dated March 29, 2022, by keeping the FAO as the assessing officer. The principle established is that adherence to the algorithm-based random allocation system for assessments and reassessments is mandatory, and deviations by local authorities render such notices void for want of jurisdiction.
The High Court found that the grievance of the petitioner(s) had become academic as the return of income had been accepted by the department. Consequently, the Court closed the proceedings and disposed of all the petitions as having become otiose. The Court clarified that the questions raised in other petitions would not be affected by the disposal of these petitions. The operative direction was to dispose of the petitions as otiose.
The Tribunal held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are invalid. The reasoning is that the mandate of Section 151A of the Act, which requires adherence to an algorithm-based random assessing system for assessment and reassessment under Sections 147, 148, and 148A, must be strictly followed. The Court observed that the JAO does not have the jurisdiction to issue such notices as it weakens Section 151A and undermines the legislative intent behind the faceless regime, which aims for transparency and impartiality through technology. The ratio is that any attempt to circumvent the algorithm-based allocation system or revert to manual control is against the legislative purpose and the gains of the progressive faceless regime. Consequently, the impugned notices dated 15.04.2024 and all consequential orders, including the order dated 13.10.2025, were quashed and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The respondents are at liberty to issue fresh notices in compliance with the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022, keeping the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as the assessing officer. The time spent during the litigation is to be excluded for computing the limitation for fresh notices.
The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) are invalid. The court reasoned that the legislative intent behind introducing technology, including algorithms for randomized allocation of cases, was to enhance transparency and impartiality in the taxation system, as envisioned in the faceless regime. Section 151A of the Act mandates adherence to this algorithm-based random assessing system for assessment and reassessment under Sections 147, 148, and 148A. The court found that allowing JAOs to issue such notices would weaken Section 151A and undermine the legislative purpose. Therefore, the impugned notices issued by the JAO were quashed and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The court also clarified that the time spent during the pendency of the litigation would be excluded for computing the limitation period for issuing fresh notices, if necessary, in compliance with the CBDT Notification dated March 29, 2022, by keeping the FAO as the assessing officer. The specific notices dated June 30, 2025, and consequential orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) are not valid if they do not adhere to the algorithmic allocation of cases and the faceless assessment scheme. The Court observed that the mandate of Section 151A of the Act of 1961 must be strictly followed, and there cannot be a way out of doing so. The JAO does not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148, as it weakens Section 151A and may 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 required. Consequently, the impugned notices were quashed and set aside. The Court allowed 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. 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 the faceless assessment scheme and algorithmic allocation are mandatory, and deviations by local authorities render notices invalid.
The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) are not valid, as they do not comply with the broader scheme of automated allocation based on algorithms and random assignment of assessing officers. The Court emphasized that Section 151A of the Act mandates strict adherence to this algorithm-based random assessing system for assessment and reassessment under Sections 147, 148, and 148A. The JAO's jurisdiction to issue such notices was found to weaken Section 151A and potentially lead to its diminishing activation. The Court reasoned that the legislative intent behind introducing technology, artificial intelligence, and machine learning in the taxation system was to enhance efficiency, transparency, and impartiality. Allowing local control to prejudice common men would undermine this legislative wisdom. Consequently, the impugned notices were quashed and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was 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 litigation was excluded for computing the limitation for issuing fresh notices.
The High Court held that the grievance of the petitioner(s) had become academic because the department had accepted the returned income. Consequently, the Court found no further purpose in keeping the matters pending. The Court closed the proceedings and disposed of all the petitions as having become otiose. The High Court clarified that the questions raised in other petitions would not be affected by the disposal of these petitions. The operative direction was to dispose of the petitions. No specific issue was left undecided; rather, the entire matter was disposed of on the grounds of it becoming academic.
The Tribunal 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. 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 Tribunal 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 Section 148 notice in search cases could not be met by an FAO. The Tribunal respectfully disagreed with this view. The Court also considered the Bombay High Court's decision in Abhin Anilkumar Shah, which dealt with exceptions to the faceless regime for Central and International Tax Charges, and the Supreme Court's dismissal of an SLP against a Telangana High Court order based on that reasoning. The Tribunal held that the notice and assessment order were liable to be 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 petitioner undertook to withdraw the appeal already filed.
The Tribunal 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. The Tribunal found that the Gujarat High Court's decision in Talati and Talati LLP was not based on the reading of the notification dated March 29, 2022, along with earlier CBDT orders (March 31, 2021/September 06, 2021) but rather on a simple 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 Tribunal respectfully 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. The Tribunal also took note of the Supreme Court's dismissal of an SLP against a Telangana High Court order based on the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment. 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 stated that other grounds were not pressed and would be taken up at an appropriate stage.
The High Court held that the issue was no longer res integra and was squarely covered by a series of its own judgments. Specifically, the court referred to D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19953/2025 (Ravindra Singh vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax) and D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18987/2025 (Jaskaran Singh Brar vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax). These judgments had quashed and set aside reassessment proceedings initiated in search cases where notices under Section 148 were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The court found that the Gujarat High Court's differing view in Talati and Talati LLP was based on a different factual matrix and an incomplete understanding of the relevant CBDT orders and the Bombay High Court's reasoning in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Supreme Court's dismissal of an SLP against a Telangana High Court order further supported the assessee's position. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the notice dated 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 and the assessment order dated 17.03.2025 passed under Section 147, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the notice dated 15.04.2024 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and all consequential orders. The Court held that the mandate of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be strictly followed, and the JAO does not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act in the manner done. Adherence to an algorithm-based random assessing system is required for assessment and reassessment under Sections 147, 148, and 148A, in light of the sanction under Section 151A. The Court reasoned that allowing local control to prejudice assessees undermines legislative wisdom and the gains of the progressive faceless regime. The judgment relied on a coordinate bench's decision in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11787/2024 (Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. Vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr.) and another order by one of the judges in Civil Writ Petition No.21509/2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.). 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 limitation purposes.