Loading High Court cases…
446 orders · Page 5 of 9
The High Court held that since the narrow compass of the issue was being directly adjudicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 31711/2025, it would be appropriate to dispose of the present writ petitions by extending the same protection as granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Accordingly, the Court directed that the Adjudicating Authority shall not proceed with any proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the petitioners, nor give effect to any consequential or impugned orders, for as long as the interim protection granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court continues. The outcome of the SLP would govern the outcome of these petitions. The Court disposed of the writ petitions in terms of the order passed in Pramod Jain, applying the observations and directions mutatis mutandis.
The High Court held that since the narrow compass of the issue was being directly adjudicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 31711/2025, it would be appropriate to dispose of the present writ petitions by extending the same protection as granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Accordingly, the Court directed that the Adjudicating Authority shall not proceed with any proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the petitioners, nor give effect to any consequential or impugned orders, for as long as the interim protection granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court continues. The outcome of the SLP would govern the outcome of these petitions. The Court disposed of the writ petitions in terms of the order passed in Pramod Jain, applying the observations and directions mutatis mutandis.
The Tribunal held that since the loans along with interest were repaid in the same assessment year, no addition could be made. The genuineness of the lending companies was established by their PAN and ROC registration.
The High Court held that it would be appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition by extending the same protection as granted by the Supreme Court. The Court directed that the Adjudicating Authority shall not proceed with any proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the petitioner, including consequential orders or giving effect to any impugned orders, for as long as the interim protection granted by the Supreme Court continues. The outcome of the present petition is explicitly stated to be governed by the outcome of SLP No. 31711/2025 (tagged with SLP(C) No. 33392/2025). The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the earlier order passed in Pramod Jain.
The High Court, considering the submissions of both parties, held that the controversy in the present petition was identical to that being adjudicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Siddharth Totuka (SLP No. 31711/2025) concerning Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, it was appropriate to dispose of the present writ petitions by extending the same protection as granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Court directed that the Adjudicating Authority shall not proceed with any proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the petitioners, nor give effect to any consequential orders, for as long as the interim protection granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court continues. The outcome of SLP No. 31711/2025 (tagged with SLP(C) No. 33392/2025) shall govern the outcome of the present petitions. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.
The High Court held that given the narrow compass of the issue being directly adjudicated by the Supreme Court in Siddharth Totuka (supra), it would be appropriate to dispose of the present writ petitions by extending the same protection as granted by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, it was directed that the Adjudicating Authority shall not proceed with any proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the petitioners, nor give effect to any consequential orders or impugned orders, for as long as the interim protection granted by the Supreme Court continues. The outcome of SLP No. 31711/2025 (tagged with SLP(C) No. 33392/2025) shall govern the outcome of the present petitions. The writ petitions were disposed of in terms of the order passed in Pramod Jain (supra), with the observations and directions applying mutatis mutandis.
The High Court held that given the narrow compass of the issue being directly adjudicated by the Supreme Court in Siddharth Totuka (SLP No. 31711/2025), it would be appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition by extending the same protection as granted by the Supreme Court. The Court directed that the Adjudicating Authority shall not proceed with any proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the petitioner, nor give effect to any consequential orders, for as long as the interim protection granted by the Supreme Court continues. The outcome of the Supreme Court's SLP was declared to govern the outcome of the present petition. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the order passed in Pramod Jain (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18359/2025), which was decided on 27.01.2026, applying the observations and directions mutatis mutandis.
The High Court held that since the narrow compass of the issue concerning Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was directly being adjudicated by the Supreme Court, it would be appropriate to dispose of the present writ petitions by extending the same protection as granted by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Court directed that the Adjudicating Authority shall not proceed with any proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the petitioners, nor give effect to any consequential orders, for as long as the interim protection granted by the Supreme Court continues. The outcome of SLP No. 31711/2025 (tagged with SLP(C) No. 33392/2025) was stated to govern the outcome of the present petitions. The writ petitions were disposed of in terms of the order passed in the case of Pramod Jain, with the observations and directions applying mutatis mutandis.
The High Court held that given the narrow compass of the issue being directly adjudicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Siddharth Totuka (SLP No. 31711/2025) concerning Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it was appropriate to dispose of the present writ petitions by extending the same protection as granted by the Apex Court. The Court directed that the Adjudicating Authority shall not proceed with any proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the petitioners, nor give effect to any consequential orders or impugned orders, for as long as the interim protection granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court continues. The outcome of SLP No. 31711/2025 (tagged with SLP(C) No. 33392/2025) was stated to govern the outcome of the present petitions. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.
The High Court held that given the narrow compass of the issue being directly adjudicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Siddharth Totuka's case concerning Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it would be appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition by extending the same protection as granted by the Apex Court. Accordingly, the Court directed that the Adjudicating Authority shall not proceed with any proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the petitioners, nor give effect to any consequential orders, for as long as the interim protection granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court continues. The outcome of SLP No. 31711/2025 (tagged with SLP(C) No. 33392/2025) was stated to govern the outcome of the present petitions. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the order passed in the case of Pramod Jain (supra), with the observations and directions applying mutatis mutandis.
The Tribunal held that a writ petition is not maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available. The judgment explicitly states that against the order impugned, a remedy of appeal lies under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the CIT (Appeals), which had not been availed by the petitioner. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The court granted the petitioner liberty to file an appeal before the CIT (Appeals). No specific findings were made on the merits of the assessment order itself, as the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds. The ratio decidendi is that statutory remedies must be exhausted before approaching the writ court, unless exceptional circumstances are present.
The High Court, acknowledging that the controversy in the present petitions was identical to that being adjudicated by the Supreme Court in SLP No. 31711/2025, decided to extend the same protection granted by the Apex Court. The Court directed that the Adjudicating Authority shall not proceed with any proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the petitioners, nor give effect to any consequential orders or impugned orders, for as long as the interim protection granted by the Supreme Court remains in operation. The High Court explicitly stated that the outcome of SLP No. 31711/2025 (tagged with SLP(C) No. 33392/2025) shall govern the outcome of the present petitions. The writ petitions were disposed of in terms of the order passed in a co-ordinate bench's case, Pramod Jain vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which mirrored the Supreme Court's directions.
The High Court held that since the narrow compass of the issue concerning Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was being directly adjudicated by the Supreme Court, it would be appropriate to dispose of the present writ petitions by extending the same protection as granted by the Supreme Court. The Court directed that the Adjudicating Authority shall not proceed with any proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the petitioners, including consequential orders or giving effect to impugned orders, for as long as the interim protection granted by the Supreme Court continues. The outcome of SLP No. 31711/2025 (tagged with SLP(C) No. 33392/2025) shall govern the outcome of the present petitions. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.
The High Court held that the controversy raised in the present petitions was identical to that considered in the case of Pramod Jain vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and other connected cases, decided on 27.01.2026. The Court noted that the Supreme Court, in Siddharth Totuka Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle (SLP No. 31711/2025), had stayed proceedings concerning Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the High Court directed that the Adjudicating Authority shall not proceed with any proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the petitioners, nor give effect to any consequential orders, for as long as the interim protection granted by the Supreme Court continues. The outcome of the present petitions was made subject to the final outcome of SLP No. 31711/2025. The writ petitions were disposed of in terms of the order passed in Pramod Jain.
The High Court held that the controversy raised in the present petitions was identical to that considered in the case of Pramod Jain vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and other connected cases, decided on 27.01.2026. The Court noted that the Supreme Court, in Siddharth Totuka Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle (SLP No. 31711/2025), had stayed proceedings concerning Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the High Court directed that the Adjudicating Authority shall not proceed with any proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the petitioners, nor give effect to any consequential orders, for as long as the interim protection granted by the Supreme Court continues. The outcome of the present petitions was made subject to the final outcome of SLP No. 31711/2025. The writ petitions were disposed of in terms of the order passed in Pramod Jain.
The High Court held that the controversy raised in the present petitions was identical to that considered in the case of Pramod Jain vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and other connected cases, decided on 27.01.2026. The Court noted that the Supreme Court, in Siddharth Totuka Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle (SLP No. 31711/2025), had stayed proceedings concerning Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the High Court directed that the Adjudicating Authority shall not proceed with any proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the petitioners, nor give effect to any consequential orders, for as long as the interim protection granted by the Supreme Court continues. The outcome of the present petitions was made subject to the final outcome of SLP No. 31711/2025. The writ petitions were disposed of in terms of the order passed in Pramod Jain.
The High Court held that since the narrow compass of the issue concerning Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was being directly adjudicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it would be appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition by extending the same protection as granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Accordingly, the Court directed that the Adjudicating Authority shall not proceed with any proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the petitioner, nor give effect to any consequential orders, for as long as the interim protection granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court continues. The outcome of SLP No. 31711/2025 shall govern the outcome of the present petition. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned. The Court did not decide the merits of the case but granted a stay based on the Supreme Court's order.
The High Court held that since the narrow compass of the issue concerning Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was directly being adjudicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it would be appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition by extending the same protection as granted by the Apex Court. The Court directed that the Adjudicating Authority shall not proceed with any proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the petitioner, nor give effect to any impugned orders, for as long as the interim protection granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court continues. The outcome of SLP No. 31711/2025 (tagged with SLP(C) No. 33392/2025) shall govern the outcome of the present petition. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the order passed in the case of Pramod Jain.
The High Court, following its co-ordinate bench's decision in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11787/2024 and the order in CWP No.21509/2023, held that the mandate of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be strictly followed. It was held that the JAO does not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, as this would weaken Section 151A and potentially lead to its diminishing activation. Adherence to the 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. 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 or make them obsolete. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and 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 Tribunal held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment and reassessment, do not withstand the broader scheme of law which requires automated allocation based on algorithms and random assignment of the assessing officer. The Court emphasized that Section 151A of the Act mandates adherence to this algorithm-based random assessing system. The JAO lacks the jurisdiction to issue such notices, as it weakens Section 151A and may lead to its diminishing activation. The legislative intention behind infusing technology for a transparent and impartial taxation system, using artificial intelligence and machine learning, must be given full meaning. Any attempt to manually control the system or fall back upon the old regime of control is an imminent danger that must be thwarted. Therefore, the impugned notices are 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 Face Assessment Officer (FAO) as the assessing officer. The time spent during the pendency of the litigation will be excluded for computing the limitation for issuing fresh notices.
The Court noted that the final assessment order was passed after the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, despite the introduction of the faceless regime. Citing judgments in Jasjit Singh (supra) and Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra), the Court acknowledged that proceedings could not have been initiated by the JAO, and the faceless regime could not have later passed orders. However, since an appeal had already been preferred against the final order, the Court deemed it inappropriate to pass orders that would render the pending appeal redundant. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner was instructed to consider this application and pass appropriate orders within 15 days, taking into account the Court's prior judgments quashing proceedings based on notices issued by the JAO. The Court expressly left undecided the merits of the original assessment, focusing instead on the procedural irregularity and the pending appeal.
The High Court noted that the issue of notices by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, contrary to the faceless assessment regime and Section 151A, has been adjudicated by a coordinate bench in Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. Vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr. and other connected writ petitions, decided on March 19, 2025. The coordinate bench held that the mandate of Section 151A must be strictly followed and that JAOs do not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148, as this weakens Section 151A. Consequently, impugned notices were quashed. The court also referred to an order by one of its judges in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., which held that circulars or instructions cannot override statutory provisions and that notices issued by JAOs without conducting faceless assessment are contrary to the Act. However, in the present case, a final order was passed after the notice was issued by the JAO, and an appeal against this order was pending. The court found it inappropriate to pass orders that would render the pending appeal redundant. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to file an application before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who was directed to consider it and pass appropriate orders within 15 days, taking into account the prior judgments quashing proceedings based on notices issued by JAOs.
The Court noted that the final assessment order was passed after the notice was issued by the JAO, despite the introduction of the faceless regime. Citing the judgments in Jasjit Singh and Sharda Devi Chhajer, the Court acknowledged that proceedings could not have been initiated by the JAO, nor could the faceless regime have subsequently passed orders if the initial step was flawed. However, since an appeal against the final order was already preferred and pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Court deemed it inappropriate to pass an order that would render the appeal redundant. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner was directed to consider this application and pass appropriate orders within 15 days, taking into account the Court's prior judgments quashing proceedings based on notices issued by the JAO. The Civil Writ Petition was disposed of with this direction.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the notice dated 28.06.2025 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for Assessment Year 2020-21, and all consequential orders. The Court held that the mandate of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be strictly followed, and there cannot be a way out of doing so. The Court reiterated the finding from a co-ordinate bench that the JAO shall not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 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. The impugned notices were quashed for want of jurisdiction. The Court granted liberty to 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 excluded for computing the limitation for issuance of fresh notices, if needed.
The High Court held that the mandate of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be strictly followed. It was decided that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) does not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, as doing so weakens Section 151A and diminishes its activation. The Court found that adherence to the algorithm-based random assessing system is necessary for assessment and reassessment under Sections 147, 148, and 148A, in light of the sanction under Section 151A. Consequently, the impugned notices were quashed and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Court 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 litigation was to be excluded for computing the limitation for issuing fresh notices. The judgment also referenced a prior decision by one of the judges at the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.21509/2023 (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, causing hardship to assessees.
The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) are invalid because they do not comply with the broader scheme of law requiring automated allocation based on an algorithm and random assignment of the assessing officer. The Court emphasized that Section 151A of the Act mandates strict adherence to this algorithmic system for assessment and reassessment. The JAO lacks the jurisdiction to issue such notices, as doing so weakens Section 151A and undermines the legislative intent behind faceless assessment, which aims for transparency and impartiality. The impugned notice dated 01.03.2025 issued by the JAO for AY 2021-22 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 ratio is that any deviation from the algorithm-based random allocation system for faceless assessments renders the notices issued by the JAO without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the mandate of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be strictly followed. It was observed that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) shall not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, as doing so would weaken Section 151A and potentially diminish its activation. For assessment and reassessment under Sections 147, 148, and 148A, in light of the sanction under Section 151A, adherence to the algorithm-based random assessing system is mandatory. Consequently, the impugned notices were quashed and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Court allowed the respondents 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. The specific notice dated 28.02.2025 issued by the JAO for AY 2023-24 and consequential orders were quashed.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the notice dated 27.06.2025 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for Assessment Year 2020-21, and all consequential orders. The Court followed the precedent set by a co-ordinate bench in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11787/2024 and its own prior decision in CWP No.21509/2023. The reasoning was that the mandate of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which requires adherence to an algorithm-based random assessing system for assessment and reassessment under Sections 147, 148, and 148A, must be strictly followed. Issuance of notices by the JAO was held to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and the faceless assessment scheme envisaged under Section 144B. The Court held that the JAO does 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 allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the notice dated 27.06.2025 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for Assessment Year 2019-20, and all consequential orders. The Court followed the precedent set by its Co-ordinate Bench in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11787/2024 and the order by one of its judges in CWP No.21509/2023. The reasoning was that notices issued by JAOs under Section 148 of the Act, in the context of the faceless assessment regime and the mandate of Section 151A, are contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court held that Section 151A of the Act must be strictly followed, and JAOs lack the jurisdiction to issue such notices, as it undermines the legislative intent of automated, algorithm-based random allocation of cases for assessment and reassessment. The Court granted liberty to the respondents to issue fresh notices in compliance with the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022, keeping the Facilitation Centre as the assessing officer, and excluded the time spent during litigation for limitation purposes.
The Tribunal held that the mandate of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be strictly followed. It was observed that the JAO does not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, as doing so weakens Section 151A and 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 deserve to be quashed. The Court also referred to a previous judgment where it was held that circulars or instructions cannot override statutory provisions and that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience. The notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings were found to be contrary to the Act. The present writ petition was allowed, quashing the notice dated 28.02.2025 issued by the JAO and all consequential orders.
The Court noted that the final assessment order was passed after the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, and an appeal against this order was pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). While acknowledging that proceedings initiated by the JAO were contrary to the faceless regime, as per judgments in Jasjit Singh and Sharda Devi Chhajer, the Court deemed it inappropriate to pass orders that would render the pending appeal redundant. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner was directed to consider this application and pass appropriate orders within 15 days, taking into account the High Court's prior judgments on quashing proceedings based on notices issued by the JAO. The Court explicitly did not decide on the merits of the original assessment but provided a procedural direction. The writ petition was disposed of.
The Court observed that the issue raised in the writ petition had been adjudicated in previous judgments, specifically D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11787/2024: Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. Vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr. and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. (CWP No.21509/2023). These judgments held that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, are contrary to the provisions of the Act and lack jurisdiction. The Court acknowledged that in the present case, a final order was passed after the notice was issued by the JAO, and quashing the proceedings would make the appeal redundant. Therefore, instead of passing orders that would render the appeal redundant, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The Commissioner was directed to consider the application and pass appropriate orders within 15 days, taking into account the previous judgments quashing proceedings based on notices issued by the JAO. Any other issues were left open to be raised before the appellate authority. The time spent during the pendency of the litigation was to be excluded for computing the limitation for issuing fresh notices, if needed.
The Court noted that the final assessment order was passed after the notice was issued by the JAO, and an appeal against this order was already pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). While acknowledging that proceedings initiated by the JAO and the subsequent orders passed under the faceless regime were contrary to the law laid down in the cases of Sharda Devi Chhajer and Jasjit Singh, the Court deemed it inappropriate to make the pending appeal redundant by quashing the proceedings at this stage. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner was instructed to consider this application and pass appropriate orders within 15 days, taking into account the High Court's prior judgments on quashing proceedings based on notices issued by the JAO. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction.
The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) are invalid. The reasoning is that the scheme of faceless assessment, as envisaged by Section 144B and mandated by Section 151A of the Act, requires automated allocation based on an algorithm and random assignment of the assessing officer. The JAO issuing such notices bypasses this legislative intent and the technological advancements aimed at making the taxation system more transparent and impartial. The coordinate bench's decision in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11787/2024, which was followed, held that the mandate of Section 151A must be strictly followed and that the JAO lacks the jurisdiction to issue such notices, as it weakens Section 151A. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. also held that circulars or instructions cannot override statutory provisions and that faceless assessment under Section 144B must be conducted. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 05.04.2024 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 Face Assessment 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 High Court acknowledged that the notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. This was in line with the judgments in Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. Vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr. and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. The Court held that the mandate of Section 151A of the Act must be strictly followed, and the JAO lacks the jurisdiction to issue such notices. However, since an appeal against the final assessment order was already pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Court deemed it inappropriate to pass an order that would make the appeal redundant. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the concerned CIT(A), who was directed to consider it and pass appropriate orders within 15 days, taking into account the previous judgments of the High Court quashing proceedings based on notices issued by the JAO.
The High Court noted that the issue raised by the petitioner had been adjudicated in previous cases, specifically D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11787/2024 (Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. Vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr.) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. (CWP No.21509/2023). These judgments held that notices issued under Section 148 by the JAO are invalid as they must adhere to the algorithm-based random allocation system mandated by Section 151A of the Act. The Court reiterated that the JAO lacks jurisdiction to issue such notices, and proceedings initiated without following the faceless assessment regime under Section 144B are contrary to the Act. However, since a final order had been passed and an appeal was pending before the CIT(A), the Court deemed it inappropriate to make the appeal redundant. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the CIT(A), who was instructed to consider the matter and pass appropriate orders within 15 days, taking into account the prior judgments quashing proceedings based on notices issued by the JAO.
The High Court acknowledged that the notices were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which, in light of the judgments in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. vs. The Income Tax Officer, were contrary to the provisions of the Act and the faceless regime. These judgments held that notices issued by JAOs under Section 148, without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, are invalid. However, the Court noted that a final assessment order had already been passed and an appeal was pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Court deemed it inappropriate to pass orders that would make the pending appeal redundant. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner was directed to take into consideration the existing judgments of the High Court regarding the quashing of proceedings based on notices issued by the JAO and pass appropriate orders within 15 days. The writ petition was disposed of on these directions.
The High Court noted that the issue of notices by the JAO under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent passing of orders under the faceless regime were contrary to the Act, as per the judgments in Sharda Devi Chhajer and Jasjit Singh. These precedents held that notices issued by JAOs for assessment and reassessment under Section 148, without adherence to the algorithm-based random assessing system mandated by Section 151A, are liable to be quashed. However, since the petitioner had already preferred an appeal against the final assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), making the appeal redundant by quashing the proceedings would not be appropriate. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner was directed to take into consideration the existing judgments and pass appropriate orders within 15 days.
The High Court noted that the issue of notices by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) has been held to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and the faceless regime in previous judgments, such as Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. Vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr. and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. These judgments held that Section 151A of the Act mandates adherence to an algorithm-based random assessing system, and notices issued by JAOs under Section 148 are liable to be quashed. However, in the present case, an appeal against the final assessment order was already pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Court deemed it inappropriate to pass an order that would render the pending appeal redundant. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who was directed to consider it and pass appropriate orders within 15 days, taking into account the previous judgments quashing proceedings based on notices issued by the JAO.
The High Court, while acknowledging the petitioner's grievance regarding the issuance of notices by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer, which is contrary to the mandate of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the established faceless regime, noted that a final assessment order had already been passed and an appeal was pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Court referred to its own previous judgments in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11787/2024 (Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. Vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr.) and the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. (CWP No.21509/2023), which held that notices issued by JAOs under Section 148 are liable to be quashed for want of jurisdiction. However, to avoid making the pending appeal redundant, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The CIT(A) was directed to consider this application and pass appropriate orders within 15 days, taking into account the High Court's judgment on quashing proceedings based on notices issued by the JAO. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction.
The High Court, while acknowledging the principle that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, are contrary to the provisions of the Act and thus liable to be quashed, noted that in this specific case, a final order had already been passed after the notice was issued by the JAO, and an appeal against this order was pending before the CIT(A). The Court found it inappropriate to pass an order that would render the pending appeal redundant. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The CIT(A) is to take into consideration the prior judgments of the Court quashing proceedings based on notices issued by the JAO and pass appropriate orders within 15 days. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction.
The High Court noted that the final assessment order was passed after the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, despite the introduction of the faceless regime. Citing the judgments in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. and Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. vs. The Income Tax Officer & Anr., the Court acknowledged that proceedings could not have been initiated by the JAO, nor could the faceless regime have passed orders later if the initial notice was flawed. However, as an appeal against the final order was already preferred and pending, the Court deemed it inappropriate to pass orders that would render the appeal redundant. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). This authority is to take into consideration the judgment already rendered by the High Court regarding the quashing of proceedings based on notices issued by the JAO and pass appropriate orders within 15 days.
The High Court held that as long as the law declared in Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies, stating that jurisdiction vests with the Faceless Assessing Officer, continues to be valid, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer are not legally sustainable. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 28.03.2025 under Section 148A(3) and the consequential notice dated 28.06.2025 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with all consequential proceedings, were quashed and set aside for being without jurisdiction. The Court clarified that liberty is reserved for the respondent-Revenue to proceed afresh through the Faceless Assessing Officer, strictly in accordance with law, subject to limitations and other legal requirements. The petitioner stated that other grounds were not being pressed and would be taken up later if required.
The High Court noted that the issue of notices by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer, in contravention of the faceless regime and Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been consistently held to be invalid by coordinate benches in Sharda Devi Chhajer and Jasjit Singh. The Court acknowledged that the final assessment order was passed after the notice was issued by the JAO, and an appeal against this order was already pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). To avoid making the pending appeal redundant, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner was directed to consider this application and pass appropriate orders within 15 days, taking into account the judgments quashing proceedings based on notices issued by the JAO. The Court expressly left undecided the merits of the assessment itself, focusing on the procedural irregularity.
The Rajasthan High Court, referencing judgments in Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. Vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr. and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are contrary to the provisions of the Act, particularly Section 151A and the faceless assessment regime envisaged under Section 144B. The Court noted 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 may lead to its diminishing activation. While the prior judgments quashed such notices, in this specific case, an appeal was already preferred against the final assessment order. Therefore, to avoid making the pending appeal redundant, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The CIT(A) was directed to consider this application and pass appropriate orders within 15 days, taking into account the High Court's judgment on quashing proceedings based on notices issued by a JAO.
The High Court acknowledged that the notices were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which, in view of the judgments in Jasjit Singh and Sharda Devi Chhajer, would ordinarily render the proceedings invalid. These judgments held that notices issued by JAOs under Section 148, without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, are contrary to the Act and liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction. However, the Court observed that an appeal had already been preferred against the final assessment order. Therefore, to avoid making the pending appeal redundant, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner was directed to consider this application and pass appropriate orders within 15 days, taking into account the Court's prior judgments on quashing proceedings based on notices issued by JAOs.
The High Court noted that the final assessment order was passed after the notice was issued by the JAO, despite the introduction of the faceless regime. Citing the judgments in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. and Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. Vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr., the Court acknowledged that proceedings initiated by the JAO and subsequent orders passed under the faceless regime would be contrary to the Act. However, since a statutory appeal against the final order was already preferred and pending, the Court deemed it inappropriate to pass orders that would render the appeal redundant. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner was directed to consider this application and pass appropriate orders within 15 days, taking into account the Court's prior judgments quashing proceedings based on notices issued by the JAO. The present civil writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
The Court noted that the final order was passed after the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, despite the introduction of the faceless regime. Citing the judgments in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. and Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. vs. The Income Tax Officer & Anr., the Court acknowledged that proceedings could not have been initiated by the JAO, nor could the faceless regime have passed orders later if the initial notice was flawed. However, since an appeal against the final order was already preferred, the Court deemed it inappropriate to pass orders that would render the appeal redundant. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The CIT(A) was directed to consider this application and pass appropriate orders within 15 days, taking into account the Court's prior judgments quashing proceedings based on notices issued by the JAO. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction.