Loading High Court cases…
1,247 orders · Page 7 of 25
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the civil writ petitions. The Court held that the petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. Crucially, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to raise all plausible defence(s) before the appropriate authority. This implies that the merits of the case were not examined by the High Court, and the petitioner is free to pursue their case before the tax authorities. The operative direction is the dismissal of the petitions as withdrawn with the granted liberty. No specific issues were decided on merit.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated March 26, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax 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, which relied on Explanation 2 to Section 148 and the understanding that pre-requisites for issuing notice in search cases cannot be met by an FAO, was not agreed with. The Court noted that the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. was distinguished by the Gujarat High Court, but the Gujarat High Court was not made aware of the reasoning in Abhin Anilkumar Shah, which held that CBDT orders creating exceptions for assessment proceedings in Central Charges did not alter the faceless scheme. The Supreme Court's dismissal of an SLP against a Telangana High Court order based on Venkataramana Reddy Patloola further supported the petitioner's position. 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 were not pressed.
The High Court, in its order dated 24/09/2025, disposed of the instant writ petitions in terms of a previous order passed by a coordinate Bench of the same High Court on 26.03.2025 in the case of Friends SPS International India (P) Ltd. & Ors. versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax / Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3372/2021 and other connected matters). The Court noted that the issue involved in the present petitions was no longer res integra and had been resolved by the aforementioned coordinate Bench decision. Consequently, the petitions were ordered to be disposed of accordingly. The specific findings or reasoning of the coordinate Bench, which formed the basis for this disposal, are not elaborated in this order. Any pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the civil writ petitions. The Court held that the petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. Crucially, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to raise all plausible defence(s) before the appropriate authority. This implies that the merits of the case were not examined by the High Court, and the petitioner is free to pursue their case before the tax authorities. The operative direction is the dismissal of the petitions as withdrawn with the granted liberty. No specific issues were decided on merit.
The High Court held that the issue involved in the present writ petitions is no longer res integra and stands resolved by a coordinate Bench of the High Court. This decision was based on the order dated 26.03.2025 passed in the case of Friends SPS International India (P) Ltd. & Ors. versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax / Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. The Court ordered the disposal of the instant matters in terms of this precedent. The reasoning is that a prior judicial pronouncement by a coordinate bench on a similar issue provides a binding resolution. Therefore, the principle is that where a legal issue has been authoritatively decided by a coordinate bench, subsequent similar matters should be decided in conformity with that decision. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petitions accordingly. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 29, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision was based on the agreement between the parties that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a judgment of the Court. Specifically, the Court noted that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which, according to the Court's prior ruling in Shree Cement Limited (following Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd.), renders such a notice invalid. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties for future stages. No other grounds were decided on merits.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 29, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner's submission that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), a position supported by its previous decisions in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the liberty sought by the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with these precedents. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The Tribunal held that the notice dated April 11, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad and not valid because it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). This finding is based on the High Court's previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others and Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another. The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice. However, in view of the pending SLP in the Supreme Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, the Tribunal granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision alters the existing legal position. The petition was disposed of, and any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated March 29, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision was based on the petitioner's primary contention that the notice was invalid because it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). This contention was supported by previous judgments of the Court in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held such notices to be invalid. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 28, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged that the ground raised by the petitioner regarding the notice being issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) was covered by its own previous judgments, specifically referencing Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. While the revenue agreed with this position, it highlighted that an SLP had been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and the Apex Court had issued notice. Consequently, the Court granted the petitioner's prayer for the present, quashing the notice, but with liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside. All other rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order and the consequent demand notice were liable to be quashed and set aside. The primary reasoning was the gross violation of the principles of natural justice due to the failure to provide the petitioner with a personal hearing, despite a specific request. The Tribunal noted that the assessment order did not even refer to the petitioner's request for a hearing, and the respondents failed to deny this in their reply or offer any explanation. While the revenue suggested an alternative remedy of appeal, the Tribunal declined to direct the petitioner to pursue that route, considering that the petitioner is a charitable body of the Government of Rajasthan and the fundamental principles of natural justice were severely breached. Consequently, the assessment order, demand notice, and all consequential orders, including penalty orders, were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a fresh, reasoned assessment order by November 30, 2025, after providing a personal hearing to the petitioner at least seven working days in advance, and furnishing any relied-upon orders or judgments.
The High Court granted the petitioner's prayer to withdraw the writ petitions. The court specifically granted liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate remedies in terms of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn. Any pending applications related to these petitions were also disposed of. The court did not decide any substantive issues of income tax law or fact, as the case was resolved based on the petitioner's request to withdraw.
The High Court granted the petitioner's prayer to withdraw the writ petitions. The court specifically granted liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate remedies in terms of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn. Any pending applications related to these petitions were also disposed of. The court did not decide any substantive issues of income tax law or fact, as the case was resolved based on the petitioner's request to withdraw.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated July 29, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which, following its own precedents in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, rendered the notice invalid. Consequently, the assessment order dated May 25, 2023, which was consequential to the invalid notice, was also quashed and set aside. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The Court kept open all rights and contentions of the parties. No other grounds were decided on merits.
The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated 29.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the legal ground regarding the notice being issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) was covered by its own previous judgments, specifically Shree Cement Limited, which relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer for the present. However, in light of the Revenue's submission that an SLP was filed in the Apex Court concerning Hexaware Technologies Ltd., the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The Court also noted that the petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. Consequently, the petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 20, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court did so based on the understanding that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), a ground that had been held to render such notices invalid by this Court in previous decisions like Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Supreme Court's decision in the pending SLP concerning Hexaware Technologies Ltd. differed from the High Court's view. The Court also stated that any reassessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All other rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 10, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was bad in law as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), citing its own judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the aforementioned High Court judgments in the pending SLP. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. Any re-assessment order passed after the filing of the petition was also to stand quashed and set aside.
The Tribunal, acknowledging the agreement from the revenue's counsel that the ground was covered by a previous judgment of the Court, quashed and set aside the notice dated July 26, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on the High Court's decisions in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that such notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are invalid. The Court also quashed and set aside the consequential assessment order dated May 31, 2023, as it could not be sustained if the underlying notice was invalid. Liberty was granted 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 Court kept open all rights and contentions of the parties. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the notice dated 23.06.2025 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, requiring adherence to an algorithm-based random assessing system for assessment and reassessment under Sections 147, 148, and 148A. The Court found that JAOs do not have the jurisdiction to issue such notices as it weakens Section 151A and undermines the legislative intent of a faceless regime. The reasoning was based on prior judgments of coordinate benches which held that notices issued without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, and by JAOs, are contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court granted liberty to the respondents to issue fresh notices in compliance with the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022, keeping the FAO as the assessing officer, and excluded the time spent during litigation for computing limitation for fresh notices.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the notice dated 24.06.2025 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and all consequential orders. The Court followed the precedent set by its Coordinate Bench in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11787/2024 and the order by one of its judges in Civil Writ Petition No.21509/2023. The reasoning was that notices issued by JAOs under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without adherence to the algorithm-based random assessing system as envisaged under Section 151A and the faceless assessment scheme under Section 144B, are contrary to the provisions of the Act. 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 Section 151A and undermines legislative wisdom. The revenue was 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 fresh notices.
The High Court held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are invalid. 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 the legislative intention behind infusing technology, including artificial intelligence and machine learning, for randomized allocations of cases through an algorithm, aims to enhance transparency and impartiality. Any attempt to manually control the process or fall back on old methods is an imminent danger that must be thwarted. The Court also referred to a previous decision by one of its judges which held that circulars or instructions cannot override statutory provisions and that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 24.06.2025 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 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, if needed.
The High Court dismissed the Civil Writ Petition. The Court referred to its earlier decision in Vaibhav Global Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which was decided on similar grounds. The Court noted that the notice under Section 153C was issued as a consequence of a Division Bench judgment in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal & Ors. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., where the respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. The Court found that the assessee had accepted the observations in earlier writ petitions, and the Revenue had initiated proceedings under Section 153C based on a satisfaction note derived from the search of another person. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the action taken by the Revenue. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all necessary arguments and defenses before the Income Tax Authorities, who were directed to pass an appropriate speaking order. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated July 29, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court followed its own judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which in turn relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that a notice issued by a JAO instead of an FAO is bad in law and not valid. Consequently, the assessment order dated May 29, 2023, which was passed subsequent to the invalid notice, was also quashed and set aside as it could not be sustained. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. The writ petition was disposed of.
The Tribunal dismissed the Civil Writ Petition. The Court referred to its previous decision in Vaibhav Global Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which was based on a Division Bench judgment in Dinesh Kumar Khatoria Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax. In the Dinesh Kumar Khatoria case, the Court had quashed a notice under Section 148 but granted liberty to the revenue to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The Court noted that the current notice under Section 153C was issued in consequence of this liberty. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the action taken by the Revenue, given the satisfaction note and the basis for initiating proceedings under Section 153C. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all necessary arguments and defenses before the authorities, who were directed to pass a speaking order. The ratio is that once liberty is granted to proceed in accordance with law, subsequent proceedings initiated under relevant provisions, based on a satisfaction note, are not to be interfered with by the writ court, and the assessee should pursue remedies before the assessing authorities.
The High Court dismissed the Civil Writ Petition. The Court reiterated its stance from the case of Vaibhav Global Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which was decided by the same bench. In that prior case, the Court had observed that the petitioner was free to raise all necessary arguments and defenses before the authorities, who were required to pass a speaking order. The Court noted that the current notice under Section 153C was a consequence of a previous Division Bench judgment in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal & Ors. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., where liberty was granted to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law. The Court found no reason to interfere with the action taken by the revenue, given the satisfaction note and the liberty granted in earlier proceedings. All grounds were left open for the petitioner to raise before the assessing authorities.
The High Court dismissed the Civil Writ Petition, upholding the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court referred to its previous decision in Vaibhav Global Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which was followed mutatis mutandis. The Court noted that the notice under Section 153C was a consequence of the liberty granted to the revenue authorities to proceed in accordance with law, even after the quashing of earlier notices under Section 148. The existence of a satisfaction note, which formed the basis for initiating proceedings under Section 153C, was also considered. The Court found no reason to interfere with the action taken by the revenue. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all necessary arguments and defenses before the assessing authorities, who would be required to pass a speaking order. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court dismissed the Civil Writ Petition, upholding the notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court referred to its previous decision in Vaibhav Global Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which was decided mutatis mutandis. The Court noted that the petitioner had previously challenged a notice under Section 148 and the proceedings were quashed with liberty to the authorities to proceed. The current notice under Section 153C is a consequence of the liberty granted. The Court also referenced the judgment in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal & Ors. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, where similar liberty was granted. The Court found that the satisfaction note formed the basis for initiating proceedings under Section 153C, and given the prior liberty granted by the court, it was not inclined to interfere with the action taken by the revenue. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all necessary arguments and defenses before the authorities, who were directed to pass a speaking order. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court dismissed the Civil Writ Petition, holding that the notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid. The Court referred to its previous decision in Vaibhav Global Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which dealt with a similar situation. The Court noted that the petitioner had previously challenged notices under Section 148 and the High Court had quashed those proceedings with liberty to the respondent-Tax Authorities to proceed in accordance with law. The Court found no reason to interfere with the notice issued under Section 153C, as it was a consequence of the liberty granted. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all necessary arguments and defenses before the assessing authorities, who were directed to pass a speaking order. The issue of limitation was also considered not to arise due to the prior court order granting liberty to proceed.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there were no reasons to interfere with the notice issued under Section 153C. The Court referred to its previous decision in Vaibhav Global Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which dealt with a similar situation. The reasoning was that the notice was a consequence of the liberty granted by the Court in earlier writ petitions to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The Court noted that a satisfaction note formed the basis for initiating proceedings under Section 153C. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all necessary arguments and defenses before the assessing authorities, who would be required to pass a speaking order. The amount of Rs. 3,55,00,000 in undisclosed cash loans was to be answered by the petitioner to the authorities. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal 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 Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found the facts of the Gujarat High Court case (Talati and Talati LLP) to be entirely different from the present case. The Gujarat High Court's reasoning, which relied on Explanation 2 to Section 148 and the understanding that the pre-requisites for issuing a notice under Section 148 in search cases cannot be met by the FAO, was respectfully disagreed with by the Tribunal. 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. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's dismissal of an SLP against a Telangana High Court order (Venkataramana Reddy Patloola) supported the petitioner's stance. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The petitioner undertook to withdraw a previously filed appeal.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax 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, which relied on Explanation 2 to Section 148 and the understanding that the pre-requisites for issuing a Section 148 notice in search cases could not be met by the FAO, was respectfully disagreed with by the Rajasthan High Court. 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 and International Taxation Charges. Furthermore, the Supreme Court had dismissed an SLP against a Telangana High Court order based on 'Venkataramana Reddy Patloola', reinforcing the view that such notices might be invalid. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in 'Hexaware Technologies Ltd.', 'Sharda Devi Chhajer', or 'Shree Cement Limited'. Other grounds raised by the petitioner were not pressed.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. 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 Gujarat High Court's reasoning was based on an understanding that the FAO does not draw a satisfaction note before issuing a Section 148 notice in search cases and that pre-requisites for such notices require human application of mind, not an algorithm. The Tribunal disagreed with this view. The Court noted that the Gujarat High Court was not aware of the Bombay High Court's reasoning in Abhin Anilkumar Shah, which dealt with exceptions to the faceless mechanism for Central and International Tax Charges. Furthermore, the Supreme Court had dismissed an SLP against a Telangana High Court order based on the reasoning in Venkataramana Reddy Patloola, which was similar to the present case. 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 quashed and set aside the notice dated March 15, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found that the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Talati and Talati LLP, which was relied upon by the revenue, was based on a different factual matrix and an understanding that the pre-requisites for issuing a Section 148 notice in search cases could not be met by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The Court disagreed with this reasoning. The Tribunal noted that the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. was distinguished in the Gujarat case as applying to Explanation 1 to Section 148, not Explanation 2. Crucially, the Supreme Court had dismissed the Revenue's SLP against a Telangana High Court order in Venkataramana Reddy Patloola, which was based on similar reasoning. The Court also considered the Bombay High Court's decision in Abhin Anilkumar Shah, which held that certain CBDT orders creating exceptions to the faceless mechanism did not apply to the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The Court 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.
The Tribunal (High Court) held that the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to raise all arguments before the Authorities was granted. Consequently, the Civil Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The liberty to raise all arguments before the Authorities was explicitly granted as prayed for by the petitioner. No other issues were decided on merits, as the petition was withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with liberty.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated 26.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged that the ground raised by the petitioner regarding the notice being issued by a JAO instead of an FAO was covered by its own previous judgments, specifically citing Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court noted the revenue's submission that an SLP was pending before the Supreme Court in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case. Consequently, the Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision in the aforementioned cases differed from the High Court's pronouncements. The petition was disposed of with all rights and contentions of the parties kept open. Any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 12, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by its own previous judgments, specifically citing Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. These judgments held that a notice issued by a JAO instead of an FAO would be invalid. While the Revenue agreed with this position for the present, it highlighted that an SLP was pending before the Supreme Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case. Therefore, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Supreme Court's decision altered the existing legal position. The Court also stated that if any re-assessment order is passed, it will also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court, acknowledging the agreement between the parties, quashed and set aside the notice dated April 11, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court's decision was based on its prior ruling in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that such notices issued by a JAO, rather than a FAO, are invalid. However, the court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to overturn the aforementioned judgments. The court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The Tribunal held that the order dated July 12, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice dated July 12, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Act 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 Explanation 2 to Section 148 (as it existed then) and an understanding that the pre-requisites for issuing a notice under Section 148 in search cases could not be met by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). However, the Rajasthan High Court disagreed with this reasoning. The Court noted that the Gujarat High Court was not made aware of the Bombay High Court's reasoning in Abhin Anilkumar Shah vs. Income Tax Officer, which dealt with exceptions to the faceless regime for certain assessment proceedings. Furthermore, the Court took note of the dismissal of an SLP by the Supreme Court against a Telangana High Court order based on the reasoning in Venkataramana Reddy Patloola, which supported the assessee's position. The Court quashed the impugned order and notice, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties, 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 High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated June 29, 2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's argument that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), rendering it invalid, as per previous High Court decisions in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Revenue did not press for the notice to be sustained in light of these precedents but sought liberty to revive it if the Supreme Court's decision in the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case differed. The Court granted this liberty. The petition was disposed of, and any reassessment order passed pursuant to the impugned notice would also stand quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the counsel for the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the case was made. The ratio decidendi, if any, would pertain to the court's discretion in allowing withdrawal of a writ petition upon the petitioner's request. No specific operative directions were issued other than the dismissal of the petition.
The High Court quashed the notice dated 30.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court relied on a previous decision by a coordinate bench in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which had quashed similar notices and orders. The Court observed that the primary issue was the validity of the Section 148 notice and that subsequent proceedings had not been taken. The Court stated that if the respondents chose to initiate proceedings under Section 153(c), the petitioner's subsequent arguments would not be applicable. Therefore, the notice under Section 148 was set aside and quashed. The liberty granted to the Department in the previous judgment would be available only if it was permissible in law. Accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed.
The Tribunal (High Court) decided to allow the petitioner's prayer to withdraw the writ petition. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's counsel's instructions to withdraw. The High Court granted liberty to the petitioner to raise all arguments before the concerned authorities. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with liberty. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the petition was withdrawn.
The High Court held that the Civil Writ Petition was premature. The Court observed that only notices under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had been issued, and the petitioner had the opportunity to file a reply to these notices. The Court further stated that the respondents (income tax authorities) would be required to pass a speaking order after considering the petitioner's reply and providing a hearing. Based on the prematurity of the petition, the Court dismissed the writ petition. No decision was made on the merits of the Section 271E proceedings themselves, as the challenge was to the procedural stage.
The Tribunal held that the mandate of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be strictly followed. It was decided that a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) does not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, as this weakens Section 151A and may lead to its diminished 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 issued by the JAO were quashed and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The court also held that circulars or instructions cannot override statutory provisions. The time spent during the pendency of the litigation was to be excluded for computing the limitation for issuance of fresh notices, if needed, in compliance with CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022, keeping the FAO as the assessing officer. The notice dated 28.03.2023 issued by the JAO and consequential orders were quashed.
The High Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition stands finally adjudicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024 INSC 754). The Court noted the Supreme Court's observation that for a notice issued on May 1, 2021, under the old regime, the deemed show cause notices would also come into effect from May 1, 2021. After accounting for exclusions, the assessing officer would have sixty-one days to issue a notice under Section 148 of the new regime, starting from the date of the assessee's response. The Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the Supreme Court's judgment, mutatis mutandis. No specific issue was left undecided; the entire petition was disposed of based on the precedent.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on the Court's prior decisions in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that notices issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) are invalid. The Court also quashed and set aside the consequential assessment order dated 27.03.2025, as it could not be sustained if the underlying notice was invalid. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments relied upon by the petitioner. The Court kept open all rights and contentions of the parties for future stages.
The High Court held that the ITAT was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 48,49,782/-. The assessment order was passed under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3 Vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., which states that in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during a search, the AO cannot assess or reassess based on other material for completed assessments. The AO's addition was based on information from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata, and was not supported by any incriminating material found during the search or other evidence. It was based on hypothetical presumptions and speculation by the AO. The AO failed to bring on record any cogent material or evidence to support the addition. Therefore, the ITAT's factual finding that the addition had to be deleted was correct. No substantial question of law arose.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated 13.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This decision was based on the concession made by the revenue that the ground raised by the petitioner, concerning the issuance of the notice by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), was covered by the High Court's previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court acknowledged the revenue's submission regarding the pending SLP in the Apex Court and granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision altered the existing legal position. The petition was disposed of with this liberty reserved. Any re-assessment order passed subsequently was also to stand quashed and set aside.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 2, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's decision was based on the understanding that such notices issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) were considered invalid, following its own previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments in favor of the revenue. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to this notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All pending applications were disposed of.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated 26.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the assessment order dated 26.06.2025 passed under Section 148A(3) of the Act. The Court found merit in the petitioner's contention that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), referencing the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Shree Cement Limited. While acknowledging the pending SLP in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and the possibility of the Apex Court's intervention, the Court proceeded to grant the petitioner's prayer. However, to protect the revenue's interest, liberty was granted to the revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court's decision in the aforementioned cases were to impact the current ruling. The petition was disposed of with these directions, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.