Anil Soni v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Beawer

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14034/2025 Anil Soni S/o Shri Gordhan Soni, Aged About 39 Years, R/o-Azad Nagar, Masuda Road, Beawer 305901, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Beawer, Having Its Address At CourtCampus, Ajmer Road, Beawer, Rajasthan, 305901 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jaideep Malik forMr. Ranjan Mehta For Respondent(s): Mr. Nitin Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT 16/09/2025 Order 1.Issue notice to respondent. 2.Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate accepts notice on behalf ofrespondent. 3.Both the learned counsels ad idem clearly state that theissue raised in the present writ petition stands finally adjudicatedby a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11787/2024: Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. Vs TheIncome Tax Officer & Anr. and other connected writ petitionsdecided on 19.03.2025, wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench has heldas under: “18. This Court further observes that anyjurisdictional error in the notices has to be curedand thus, the notices which have been issued forassessment and reassessment and which are theimpugned notices under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, do not withstand the broader scheme of law,which requires automated allocation based onalgorithm and random assignment of the assessingofficer. Part 2(i)(a) of the Scheme cleardemarcates as to how the assessment andreassessment has to take place. 19. This Court is conscious of the fact that anyreform or change for betterment is always resistedby the persons in control, particularly those who donot visualize the pragmatic and progressive pathswhich require vision and wisdom. The legislature inits own vision and wisdom, for enhancing theefficiency of the taxation system by making it moretransparent and impartial, decided to have infusedtechnology in the shape of an algorithm forrandomised allocations of cases, by using suitabletechnological tools, including artificial intelligenceand machine learning, with a view to optimise theuse of resources. The common tendency to cling tocontrol and old methods has to be dealt with firmlyand ways & means including loopholes to fall backupon the old regime of control is an imminentdanger which has to be thwarted off. Thelegislative intention, legislative vision andlegislative wisdom has to be given full meaning interms of technology and progressiveness, andthus, once an effective and strong step has beentaken towards faceless regime, then maintainingthe strings of local control to the prejudice of acommon man would not only undermine thelegislative wisdom but the gains in terms of such aprogressive and pragmatic step would stand toreduce. Once the gear of progress has beenapplied in a democratic set up, the same has to bestrongly supported and sustained. The CBDTCircular read with Section 151A of the Act of 1961has to be given full meaning and any ways &means to defeat the technology or to manually tryto control the same would go against thelegislative purpose. 20. Thus, this Court holds that the mandate ofSection151A of the Act of 1961 has to be strictlyfollowed as there cannot be a way out of doing thesame. This Court also holds that the JAO shall nothave the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section148 of the Act of 1961, as it would not only renderSection 151A weak, but may also lead to itsdiminishing activation. For the purpose ofassessment and reassessment under Sections 147,148 & 148A and in light of the sanction underSection 151A, adherence has to be made toalgorithm based random assessing system, and therefore, the impugned notices deserve to bequashed. 20. Thus, this Court holds that the mandate ofSection151A of the Act of 1961 has to be strictlyfollowed as there cannot be a way out of doing thesame. This Court also holds that the JAO shall nothave the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section148 of the Act of 1961, as it would not only renderSection 151A weak, but may also lead to itsdiminishing activation. For the purpose ofassessment and reassessment under Sections 147,148 & 148A and in light of the sanction underSection 151A, adherence has to be made toalgorithm based random assessing system, and therefore, the impugned notices deserve to bequashed. 21. Consequently, the present writ petitions areallowed. Accordingly, the impugned Notices arequashed and set aside, as far as the jurisdiction ofJAOs for the purpose of Sections 148 & 148A of theAct of 1961 to issue the same is concerned. Thequestion raised herein stands answered in theterms indicated above, with liberty to therespondents to issue fresh notices in compliance ofthe CBDT Notification dated29.03.2022, by keepingthe FAO as assessing officer. 21.1 However, the time spent during the pendencyof the present litigation in the Court, shall beexcluded for the purpose of computing limitationfor issuance of fresh notices, in case, need arises. 21.2 All pending applications stand disposed of.” 4.One of us (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma)while sitting at Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh,passed an order in Civil Writ Petition No.21509/2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.), decided on 29.07.2024wherein it was held as under:- “16. We are in agreement with the view taken bythe Coordinate Bench and hold that such circular orinstructions by the Board could not have beenissued to override statutory provisions or to makethem otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactmentshaving financial implications are required to befollowed strictly and mandatorily. By exercising thepowers contained in Sections 119 and 120 of theAct, 1961 as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), theauthorities cannot be allowed to usurp the legalprovisions to their own satisfaction andconvenience causing hardship to the assessees. Italso leaves confusion in the minds of thetaxpayers. In the opinion of this Court, instructionsand circulars can be issued only for the purpose ofsupplementing the statutory provisions and fortheir implementation. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is nooccasion to distinguish or take a different view assuggested by the learned counsel for the revenuefrom what has already been held by the CoordinateBench. 18. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench (supra) notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and theproceedings initiated thereafter without conductingthe faceless assessment as envisaged underSection 144B of the Act, 1961, have been found tobe contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961 andaccordingly notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023,20.03.2024 and30.03.2023 and order dated30.03.2023, are set aside for want of jurisdiction.19. The respondents-revenue would be, howeverat liberty to follow the procedure as laid downunder the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if soadvised. 20. All the writ petitions are allowed. The interimorder passed by the Court shall stand merged withthe present order.” 5.Keeping in view above, the present writ petition is allowed inthe aforesaid terms. The observations and order passed aboveshall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case. 6.The notice dated 24.06.2025 issued by the JurisdictionalAssessing Officer (J.A.O.) and all the consequential orders passedthere on the said basis stands quashed and set aside. 7.Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J GAURAV/AVINASH/36