Rajasthan High Court Judgments — 2025

The High Court held that the mandate of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be strictly followed. It was decided that a JAO does not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, as this would weaken Section 151A and diminish its activation. For assessment and reassessment under Sections 147, 148, and 148A, in light of the sanction under Section 151A, adherence to the algorithm-based random assessing system is mandatory. Consequently, the impugned notices were quashed and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The court allowed the respondents to issue fresh notices in compliance with the CBDT Notification dated March 29, 2022, by keeping the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as the assessing officer. The time spent during the pendency of the litigation was excluded for computing the limitation for issuing fresh notices, if needed. The present writ petition was allowed in the same terms, quashing the notice dated June 24, 2025, and consequential orders.

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.

The High Court 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 submission that the notice was issued by the JAO and not the FAO, aligning with the legal position established in the cited cases. The revenue did not dispute this fact. However, the Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to alter the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The petition was disposed of with these directions, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 29, 2025, issued under Section 148 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, which relied on Explanation 2 to Section 148 and the understanding that pre-requisites for issuing a Section 148 notice in search cases could not be met by an FAO, 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. The Supreme Court's dismissal of an SLP against a Telangana High Court order (Venkataramana Reddy Patloola) further supported the view that the notice 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 quashed and set aside the notice dated 25.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the assessment order dated 25.06.2025 passed under Section 148A(3) of the Act. This decision was based on the established principle that such notices must be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer, as supported by the precedents cited by the petitioner. The Tribunal acknowledged the revenue's submission regarding the pending Special Leave Petition in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case and granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

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 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 Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) does not draw a satisfaction note before issuing a Section 148 notice in search cases, and that pre-requisite conditions for such notices cannot be fulfilled by an algorithm. 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 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 Court held that the impugned notice 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 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 Gujarat High Court's judgment in Talati and Talati LLP was based on a different factual matrix and a narrower interpretation of Explanation 2 to Section 148, particularly concerning search and seizure cases. The Court disagreed with the Gujarat High Court's understanding that the pre-requisites for issuing a Section 148 notice in search cases could not be met by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The 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 regime for Central and International Tax Charges. The Supreme Court's dismissal of an SLP against a Telangana High Court order in Venkataramana Reddy Patloola further supported the Court's 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. Other grounds raised by the petitioner were not pressed.

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the order dated August 28, 2024, passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice dated August 28, 2024, issued under Section 148 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, which relied on Explanation 2 to Section 148 and the concept of automated allocation, was distinguished. 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, International Tax Ward Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai, which dealt with exceptions to the faceless regime. The Supreme Court's dismissal of an SLP against a Telangana High Court order (Venkataramana Reddy Patloola) further supported the petitioner's stance. The Court disagreed with the Gujarat High Court's view that pre-requisites for issuing notice under Section 148 in search cases cannot be met by an FAO. The revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited.

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated 07.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the ground raised was covered by its own judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that such a notice issued by a JAO instead of an FAO is invalid. However, acknowledging the Revenue's submission that an SLP was pending before the Supreme Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision overturns the High Court's rulings. The Court explicitly stated that all rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. Any reassessment order passed subsequently would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of.

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated 07.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), citing its own previous 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, in its pending SLP concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, interferes with the High Court's judgment. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. The petition was disposed of, and any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside.

The Tribunal, acknowledging the agreement between the parties, decided that the notice dated 07.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was bad in law as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). This finding was based on the High Court's prior judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice. However, in light of the pending SLP in the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, the Revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court's decision altered the existing legal position. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. Consequently, any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of.

The Tribunal held that the notice dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was bad and not valid, as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). This finding was based on the precedent set by this Court in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another. The Court acknowledged the Revenue's submission that an SLP was pending in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the notice dated 06.04.2023. However, 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, and any re-assessment order passed 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 31.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's decision was based on the agreement between the parties that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the Court. Specifically, the Court acknowledged that a notice issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) has been held to be bad and invalid in the case of Shree Cement Limited, following Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer for the present, 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 Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated July 22, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court reasoned that this notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), rendering it invalid. This finding was based on the Court's previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. Consequently, since the Section 148 notice was held to be invalid, the consequential assessment order dated May 30, 2023, was also quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of with liberty as prayed, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated 29.05.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the assessment order dated 29.05.2025 passed under Section 148A(3) of the Act. This decision was based on the admitted fact that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), aligning with the petitioner's primary ground. The Tribunal acknowledged the submissions made by the revenue regarding the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case and granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in the cited cases (Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Shree Cement Limited). The petition was disposed of with all rights and contentions of the parties kept open. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated 24.04.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the assessment order dated 24.04.2025 passed under Section 148A(3) of the Act. The decision was based on the petitioner's primary ground that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The Tribunal acknowledged the correctness of the petitioner's submission, referencing the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Shree Cement Limited. While the Revenue sought liberty to revive the notice in case of future intervention by the Apex Court in the aforementioned cases, the Tribunal, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties, granted the liberty as prayed by the Revenue. The operative direction was to quash and set aside the impugned notice and order with liberty to the Revenue to revive them under specific circumstances.

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated 19.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the assessment order dated 19.06.2025 passed under Section 148A(3) of the Act. This decision was based on the ground that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), a point conceded by the revenue and supported by prior High Court judgments. The Tribunal granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the precedents relied upon by the petitioner. The operative direction was to quash the impugned notice and order, with liberty reserved for the revenue.

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 27, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found the facts of the Gujarat High Court case (*Talati and Talati LLP*) to be entirely different from the present case. The Court disagreed with the reasoning in *Talati and Talati LLP*, particularly its understanding that the FAO does not draw a satisfaction note before issuing a Section 148 notice in search cases and that pre-requisite conditions cannot be met by an algorithm. 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. Furthermore, the Supreme Court had dismissed an SLP against a Telangana High Court order based on *Venkataramana Reddy Patloola*, reinforcing the view that the faceless regime should apply. 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*. Other grounds raised by the petitioner were not pressed and were left open for future consideration.

The High Court quashed and set aside the order dated August 28, 2024, passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice dated August 28, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found that the facts of the Gujarat High Court case (Talati and Talati LLP) were entirely different from the present case. The Court disagreed with the reasoning of the Gujarat High Court, stating that it was not based on a comprehensive reading of the notification dated March 29, 2022, along with earlier CBDT orders (March 31, 2021, and September 6, 2021), and that it was based on a limited understanding of Explanation 2 to Section 148 and the capabilities of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) in search and seizure cases. The Court noted that the Bombay High Court in Abhin Anilkumar Shah had held that the faceless scheme did not incorporate the exceptions mentioned in the earlier CBDT orders. Furthermore, the Supreme Court had dismissed an SLP against a Telangana High Court judgment in Venkataramana Reddy Patloola, which was based on similar reasoning. 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. All other grounds raised by the petitioner were not pressed and were kept open for appropriate stages.

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the order dated August 28, 2024, passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice dated August 28, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Act. 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 Gujarat High Court's reasoning that the pre-requisites for issuing a notice under Section 148 in search cases cannot be met by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). 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 carved out by CBDT orders for assessment proceedings in Central and International Tax charges. The Tribunal also highlighted the dismissal of an SLP by the Supreme Court against a Telangana High Court order in Venkataramana Reddy Patloola, which was based on similar reasoning. The Tribunal granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court interferes with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. Other grounds raised by the petitioner were not pressed.

The High Court held that the order dated August 28, 2024, passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice dated August 28, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Act are liable to be quashed and set aside. The Court found the facts of the Gujarat High Court case (Talati and Talati LLP) to be entirely different from the present case. The Court disagreed with the Gujarat High Court's reasoning, particularly its reliance 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 a 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 dealt with exceptions to the faceless mechanism for Central Charges and International Tax Charges. The Court also highlighted the dismissal of an SLP by the Supreme Court against a Telangana High Court order in Venkataramana Reddy Patloola, which was based on similar reasoning. The Court quashed the notice and order, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties, with liberty as prayed. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited.

The High Court 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 High Court held that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 153(C) cannot be objected to, and the objections raised by the petitioner were rightly rejected by the authorities. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had previously challenged reassessment proceedings under Section 148, arguing that Section 153(C) should have been invoked. This Court, in its judgment dated March 19, 2024, quashed the Section 148 proceedings and explicitly granted liberty to the respondent-Tax Authorities to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. Therefore, the challenge on the ground of limitation or maintainability of proceedings under Section 153(C) would not arise, as it was at the petitioner's instance that the liberty to proceed was granted. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Section 153(C) notice, but clarified that the petitioner is free to raise all necessary arguments and defenses before the authorities, who must pass a speaking order.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that it was identical to a previously decided case concerning the same petitioner for Assessment Year 2011-2012. In the prior judgment, the Court had observed that while the notice itself might not have contained all details, the satisfaction note indicated the basis for initiating proceedings under Section 153C. The Court noted that the petitioner had previously challenged a Section 148 notice, which was quashed with liberty granted to the authorities to proceed. Therefore, the challenge on grounds of limitation was not sustainable. The Court had concluded that there were no reasons to interfere with the Section 153C notice and that the petitioner was free to raise all necessary arguments and defenses before the assessing authorities, who were directed to pass a speaking order. Applying the same reasoning mutatis mutandis to the present case for Assessment Year 2010-2011, the petition was dismissed.

The High Court held that the proceedings initiated under Section 153(C) cannot be objected to, as the petitioner had previously argued that proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153(C) rather than Section 148. The Court had quashed the Section 148 proceedings on March 19, 2024, with liberty to the authorities to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. Given this liberty granted at the petitioner's instance, the challenge on the ground of limitation would not arise. Therefore, the objections raised by the petitioner against the reassessment proceedings were rightly rejected by the authorities. The Court found no reason to interfere with the notice issued under Section 153(C) but granted the petitioner liberty to raise all necessary arguments and defenses before the authorities, who are to pass a speaking order. The ratio decidendi is that a party cannot challenge proceedings initiated under a section they previously insisted upon, especially when liberty to proceed was granted by the court.

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the order dated August 28, 2024, passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice dated August 28, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal 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 reasoning was based on an understanding that the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) does not draw a satisfaction note before issuing a notice under Section 148 in search cases and that the pre-requisite conditions for such a notice require human application of mind, not an algorithm. The Tribunal disagreed with this reasoning. The Tribunal 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 mechanism for assessment proceedings in Central Charges and International Tax Charges, as well as the Supreme Court's dismissal of the Revenue's SLP against the Telangana High Court's order in Venkataramana Reddy Patloola. The Tribunal concluded that the notice and 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 other grounds raised by the petitioner were not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the order dated August 28, 2024, passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice dated August 28, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 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. It noted that the Gujarat High Court's decision 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 requiring human application of mind could not be fulfilled by an algorithm. The Court distinguished the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. as pertaining to Explanation 1 to Section 148, not Explanation 2. Crucially, the Court noted that the Gujarat High Court was not made aware of the Bombay High Court's reasoning in Abhin Anilkumar Shah, which dealt with exceptions to the faceless mechanism for Central Charges. The Court also referred to the dismissal of the Revenue's SLP by the Supreme Court against a Telangana High Court order in Venkataramana Reddy Patloola. The Court concluded that it did not agree with the Gujarat High Court's reasoning. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The petition was disposed of with the order and notice quashed and set aside.

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated June 19, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the assessment order dated June 19, 2025, passed under Section 148A(3) of the Act. The decision was based on the established principle that such notices should be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) and not the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), as supported by the cited precedents. The court acknowledged the Revenue's submission regarding a pending Special Leave Petition in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case and granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision impacts the aforementioned judgments. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. The petition was disposed of with this liberty.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order dated 04.09.2019 does not fall within the exceptions contemplated under Circular 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024 issued by the CBDT. The reasoning provided is that the specific assessment order in question does not meet the criteria for exceptions outlined in the circular. The judgment also acknowledges that a later circular, Circular 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, has since increased the monetary limit. Based on these observations, the Tribunal dismissed the Income Tax Appeal. No specific monetary amount in dispute was recorded. The ratio decidendi is that appeals that do not fall within the exceptions of the relevant CBDT circular, especially when considering subsequent amendments or clarifications, are liable to be dismissed.

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary reasoning was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which was found to be a significant procedural flaw. The Court relied on the submissions and the established precedents, including Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Shree Cement Limited, which dealt with similar issues regarding the authority issuing such notices. However, to protect the revenue's interest in case of a future change in legal interpretation by the Apex Court, the Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice. This means the quashing is subject to the outcome of any potential Supreme Court intervention in the cited cases. The petition was disposed of with these directions.

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated 26.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on the undisputed fact that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The Tribunal acknowledged the petitioner's counsel's submission that this issue had been extensively dealt with in the cited cases. The Tribunal granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The operative direction was to quash the notice with liberty as prayed, and the petition was disposed of.

The High Court held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 26.06.2025, was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). Citing the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Shree Cement Limited, the court found merit in the petitioner's submission that such a notice was not valid. The court quashed and set aside the impugned notice. However, to accommodate the revenue's submission regarding a pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case before the Apex Court, the court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision impacts the validity of notices issued in similar circumstances. The petition was disposed of with these directions, keeping open the rights and contentions of both parties.

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 agreed with the petitioner's submission that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), citing the precedent established in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Shree Cement Limited. The Court granted the revenue the liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The petition was disposed of with this liberty reserved, keeping open the rights and contentions of both parties. No specific amount in dispute was recorded.

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated June 19, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court found merit in the petitioner's submission that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), aligning with the precedents cited by the petitioner. The Court acknowledged the revenue's submission regarding the pending SLP in the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case. To balance the interests, the Court quashed the notice with liberty to the revenue to revive it if the Apex Court's decision in the pending SLP impacts the validity of such notices. The operative direction was to quash the notice and dispose of the petition, keeping open the rights and contentions of the parties.

The High Court allowed the writ petition. Following its own decision in Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Anr., the Court held that the impugned notice dated 12.03.2024 issued under Section 148 and the order dated 12.03.2024 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were without jurisdiction. Consequently, both the notice and the order were quashed. The Court also granted the petitioner liberty to raise various other grounds in appeal or before the Court as the case may be. The ratio decidendi is that if a precedent from the same High Court directly addresses the jurisdictional issue concerning notices under Sections 148 and 148A, subsequent similar actions without jurisdiction can be quashed based on that precedent.

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 26, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court followed its own previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's decision in 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 March 7, 2024, as it was based on an invalid notice. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. The petition was disposed of, and all pending applications were also disposed of.

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 26, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was invalid 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 the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. Furthermore, since the Section 148 notice was held to be invalid, the consequential assessment order dated March 5, 2024, was also quashed and set aside as it could not be sustained. 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 26, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's decision was based on the ground that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which was held to be bad and invalid in previous judgments of the Court, specifically citing Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the revenue 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. Consequently, the assessment order dated March 5, 2024, which was consequential to the invalid notice, was also quashed and set aside. The Court noted that the petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage.

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 26, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), making it invalid, following the precedent set in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. Furthermore, since the Section 148 notice was held to be invalid, the consequential assessment order dated March 7, 2024, was also quashed and set aside as it could not be sustained. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. The Court accepted the petitioner's statement that an application to withdraw the appeal would be filed within two weeks.

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated July 30, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which has been held to be bad in law by this Court in cases like Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. 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. Consequently, the assessment order dated May 29, 2023, which was passed based on the invalid notice, was also quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated February 20, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential assessment order dated March 16, 2025. The primary reason for quashing the notice was that it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which the Court held to be invalid based on its prior 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 Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments relied upon by the petitioner. The Court also noted that the petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. The petition was disposed of, and all pending applications were also disposed of.

The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 30, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on the established precedent of this Court in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that such notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are invalid. 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. Consequently, since the Section 148 notice was held to be invalid, the assessment order dated March 9, 2024, which was consequential to the notice, was also quashed and set aside. The Court kept open all rights and contentions of the parties.

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated March 30, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which, following the High Court's own precedents in Shree Cement Limited, 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 judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. Consequently, the assessment order dated March 9, 2024, which was consequential to the invalid notice, was also quashed and set aside. The Court accepted the petitioner's statement to file an application to withdraw the appeal within two weeks.

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 26, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), relying on its previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. Furthermore, since the Section 148 notice was held to be invalid, the consequential assessment order dated February 27, 2024, was also quashed and set aside. The Court accepted the petitioner's statement that an application to withdraw the appeal would be filed within two weeks. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

The Tribunal allowed the writ petition. Following the reasoning in the case of Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra), the Tribunal held that the impugned notice dated 01.05.2023 issued under Section 148 and the order dated 01.05.2023 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act of 1961, along with other consequential notices including the notice dated 13.05.2024 for the Assessment Year 2019-2020, were without jurisdiction and therefore quashed. The ratio decidendi is that if a prior judgment of the same court has established a principle regarding the lack of jurisdiction for similar actions, subsequent actions of the same nature should also be set aside based on that precedent. The operative direction was to quash the impugned notices and order.

The High Court, acknowledging the submissions of both parties, decided to quash and set aside the notice dated March 31, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Court agreed that the notice was bad in law as it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, citing its own precedent in Shree Cement Limited, which relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the liberty sought by the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. 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 March 26, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found that the notice was indeed issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), and that this ground was covered by 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 the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court's decision in the pending SLP concerning Hexaware Technologies Ltd. differed from the High Court's rulings. Consequently, the assessment order dated February 23, 2024, which was passed pursuant to the invalid notice, was also quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage.

The High Court, in agreement with the submissions made by both parties, quashed and set aside the notice dated March 31, 2024, 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 is covered by previous judgments of the Court, specifically Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The petition was disposed of with liberty as prayed, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties. The Court also noted that any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside.

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 26, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court followed its previous 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 granted the liberty sought by the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to rule differently in the pending Special Leave Petitions. Since the Section 148 notice was held invalid, the consequential assessment order dated March 20, 2025, was also quashed and set aside. The Court accepted the petitioner's statement that an application to withdraw the appeal would be filed within two weeks. The Court kept open all rights and contentions of the parties.

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 26, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court followed its previous judgments 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 granted the Revenue the 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. Consequently, the assessment order dated March 5, 2024, which was consequential to the invalid notice, was also quashed and set aside. The Court noted that the petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage and kept open all rights and contentions of the parties. The petition was disposed of.