D.b. Civil Writ Petition v. Income Tax Officer, (Ito) Wd 1(1), New Central Revenuebuilding, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14344/2025 Silver Square Corporation India Private Limited, 602-603, 6ThFloor, Trimurti V Jay City Point Ahinsha Circle, C-Scheme , JaipurG.p.o. Jaipur 302001, Rajasthan Through- Mali Ram Yadav S/oRameshwar Prasad Yadav, Patel Ki Dhani, Tigariya, Jaipur,Rajasthan- 303804 ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, (Ito) Wd 1(1), New Central RevenueBuilding, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur- 302005 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajat Sharma with Mr. Shubhendra Singh & Mr. Saksham Pandey : Mr. Nitin Jain HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 06/10/2025 1.Both the learned counsels clearly state that the issue raisedin the present writ petition stands finally adjudicated by aCoordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sharda DeviChhajer & Anr. Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Anr. (D.B. CivilWrit Petition No.11787/2024) and other connected writpetitions decided on 19.03.2025, wherein the Co-ordinate Benchhas held as under: “18. This Court further observes that any jurisdictionalerror in the notices has to be cured and thus, thenotices which have been issued for assessment andreassessment and which are the impugned noticesunder Section 148 of the Act of 1961, do not withstandthe broader scheme of law, which requires automatedallocation based on algorithm and random assignmentof the assessing officer. Part 2(i)(a) of the Schemeerror in the notices has to be cured and thus, thenotices which have been issued for assessment andreassessment and which are the impugned noticesunder Section 148 of the Act of 1961, do not withstandthe broader scheme of law, which requires automatedallocation based on algorithm and random assignmentof the assessing officer. Part 2(i)(a) of the Scheme clear demarcates as to how the assessment andreassessment has to take place. 19. This Court is conscious of the fact that any reformor change for betterment is always resisted by thepersons in control, particularly those who do notvisualize the pragmatic and progressive paths whichrequire vision and wisdom. The legislature in its ownvision and wisdom, for enhancing the efficiency of thetaxation system by making it more transparent andimpartial, decided to have infused technology in theshape of an algorithm for randomised allocations ofcases, by using suitable technological tools, includingartificial intelligence and machine learning, with a viewto optimise the use of resources. The commontendency to cling to control and old methods has to bedealt with firmly and ways & means including loopholesto fall back upon the old regime of control is animminent danger which has to be thwarted off. Thelegislative intention, legislative vision and legislativewisdom has to be given full meaning in terms oftechnology and progressiveness, and thus, once aneffective and strong step has been taken towardsfaceless regime, then maintaining the strings of localcontrol to the prejudice of a common man would notonly undermine the legislative wisdom but the gains interms of such a progressive and pragmatic step wouldstand to reduce. Once the gear of progress has beenapplied in a democratic set up, the same has to bestrongly supported and sustained. The CBDT Circularread with Section 151A of the Act of 1961 has to begiven full meaning and any ways & means to defeat thetechnology or to manually try to control the samewould go against the legislative purpose. 20. Thus, this Court holds that the mandate of Section151A of the Act of 1961 has to be strictly followed asthere cannot be a way out of doing the same. ThisCourt also holds that the JAO shall not have thejurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of theAct of 1961, as it would not only render Section 151Aweak, but may also lead to its diminishing activation.For the purpose of assessment and reassessment underSections 147, 148 & 148A and in light of the sanctionunder Section 151A, adherence has to be made toalgorithm based random assessing system, andtherefore, 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 the Actof 1961 to issue the same is concerned. The questionraised herein stands answered in the terms indicatedabove, with liberty to the respondents to issue freshnotices in compliance of the CBDT Notification dated29.03.2022, by keeping the FAO as assessing officer.21.1 However, the time spent during the pendency ofthe present litigation in the Court, shall be excluded forthe purpose of computing limitation for issuance offresh notices, in case, need arises. 21.2 All pending applications stand disposed of.” 2.One of us (Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.), whilesitting at Punjab and Haryana High Court passed an order in CWP No.21509/2023 titled as Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors., decided on 29.07.2024, wherein it was held as under: “16. We are in agreement with the view taken by theCoordinate Bench and hold that such circular orinstructions by the Board could not have been issued tooverride statutory provisions or to make them otiose orobsolete. Legislative enactments having financialimplications are required to be followed strictly andmandatorily. By exercising the powers contained inSections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961 as well asSection 144B (7 & 8), the authorities cannot be allowedto usurp the legal provisions to their own satisfactionand convenience causing hardship to the assessees. Italso leaves confusion in the minds of the taxpayers. Inthe opinion of this Court, instructions and circulars canbe issued only for the purpose of supplementing thestatutory provisions and for their 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 revenue fromwhat has already been held by the Coordinate Bench. 18. Keeping in view the law laid down by theCo-ordinate Bench(supra) notices issued by the JAOunder Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and theproceedings initiated thereafter without conducting thefaceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144Bof the Act, 1961, have been found to be contrary to theprovisions of the Act, 1961 and accordingly noticesdated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024 and30.03.2023 and order dated 30.03.2023, are set asidefor want of jurisdiction. 19. The respondents-revenue would be, however atliberty to follow the procedure as laid down under theAct, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. 20. All the writ petitions are allowed. The interim orderpassed by the Court shall stand merged with thepresent order.” 3.Keeping in view the above, the present writ petition isallowed in the aforesaid terms. The observations and order passedabove shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case. 4.The notice dated 30.06.2025 issued by the JurisdictionalAssessing Officer (JAO) and all the consequential orders passedtherein on the said basis stand quashed and set aside. 5.Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT/RAJAT/45