Norang Prasad Son Of Shri Ghasi Lal Sharma v. Income Tax Officer, Ward

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14219/2025 Norang Prasad Son Of Shri Ghasi Lal Sharma, Aged About 39Years, Resident Of 156-C, Shri Kushal Nagar, New SanganerRoad, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302029 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7 (2), Jaipur, Income TaxDepartment, Baba Siddhanath Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar,Lalkothi Scheme, Behind Vidhansabha, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302015Department, Baba Siddhanath Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar,Lalkothi Scheme, Behind Vidhansabha, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302015 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Makrana, Income TaxDepartment, Shiv Colony, Near Byepass RailwayOverbridge, Makrana, District-Nagaur, Rajasthan-341505Department, Shiv Colony, Near Byepass RailwayOverbridge, Makrana, District-Nagaur, Rajasthan-341505 3. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-7, Jaipur,Income Tax Department, Baba Siddhanath Bhawan, JyotiNagar, Lalkothi Scheme, Behind Vidhansabha, Jaipur,Rajasthan-302015Income Tax Department, Baba Siddhanath Bhawan, JyotiNagar, Lalkothi Scheme, Behind Vidhansabha, Jaipur,Rajasthan-302015 4. Central Board Of Direct Taxes (Cbdt), Ministry Of Finance,North Block, New Delhi-110011, Delhi India, Through ItsChairmanNorth Block, New Delhi-110011, Delhi India, Through ItsChairman ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hitesh Mishra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Palash Gupta for Mr. Sandeep Pathak HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHUOrder 09/10/2025 1.Both the learned counsel clearly states that the issue raisedin the present writ petition stands finally adjudicated by a Co-ordiante Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ PetitionNo.11787/2024: Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. Vs TheIncome Tax Officer & Anr. and other connected writ petitions decided on 19.03.2025, wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench has held as under: “18.This Court further observes that anyjurisdictional error in the notices has to be cured andthus, the notices which have been issued forassessment and reassessment and which are theimpugned notices under Section 148 of the Act of1961, 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 clear demarcates asto how the assessment and reassessment has to takeplace. decided on 19.03.2025, wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench has held as under: “18.This Court further observes that anyjurisdictional error in the notices has to be cured andthus, the notices which have been issued forassessment and reassessment and which are theimpugned notices under Section 148 of the Act of1961, 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 clear demarcates asto how the assessment and reassessment has to takeplace. 19.This Court is conscious of the fact that anyreform or change for betterment is always resisted bythe persons 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 ofSection 151A 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 not havethe jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 ofthe Act of 1961, as it would not only render Section151A weak, but may also lead to its diminishingactivation. For the purpose of assessment andreassessment under Sections 147, 148 & 148A and in light of the sanction under Section 151A, adherencehas to be made to algorithm based random assessingsystem, and therefore, the impugned notices deserveto be quashed.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.21.1However, 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.21.2All pending applications stand disposed of.” 2.One of us (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma)while sitting at Punjab and Haryana High Court passed an order inCWP No.21509/2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., decided on 29.07.2024 wherein it was held as under:- 2.One of us (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma)while sitting at Punjab and Haryana High Court passed an order inCWP 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 the Co-ordinate Bench(supra) notices issued by the JAO underSection 148 of the Act, 1961 and the proceedingsinitiated thereafter without conducting the facelessassessment as envisaged under Section 144B of theAct, 1961, have been found to be contrary to theprovisions of the Act, 1961 and accordingly notices dated 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 interimorder passed by the Court shall stand merged with thepresent order.” 3.Keeping in view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The observations and order passedabove shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case. 4.The notice dated 06.06.2025 issued by the JurisdictionalAssessing Officer(JAO) and all the consequential orders passedthere on the said basis stands quashed and set aside. 5.Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ DANISH USMANI /23