Notice issued by Jurisdictional AO under Section 148 quashed; Faceless Assessment procedure mandatory

Issue

Whether a notice under Section 148 (for reopening assessment) issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is valid, or if it must be issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) in accordance with Section 144B and Section 151A of the Income-tax Act.

Facts

The Action: The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) issued a notice under Section 148 to the assessee to reopen the assessment.
The Legal Context: The assessee challenged the validity of this notice, citing the provisions of the Faceless Assessment Scheme.
Precedent: It was noted that a High Court, in a similar case, had held that notices issued by a JAO under Section 148 without following the faceless assessment procedure envisaged under Section 144B were contrary to the provisions of the Act (specifically Section 151A which mandates the scheme).

Decision

JAO Lacks Jurisdiction: The Court held that with the introduction of the Faceless Assessment Scheme and Section 151A, the issuance of notice under Section 148 has been centralized and automated. The manual issuance of such notice by the local JAO bypasses the statutory mandate for faceless proceedings.
Invalid Notice: Following the view taken in the similar precedent, the Court concluded that the JAO had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice.
Ruling: The notice issued by the JAO under Section 148 and all consequential orders passed based on that notice were quashed and set aside in favour of the assessee.

Key Takeaways

Conflicting High Court Views: This judgment represents the “Pro-Assessee” view (notably held by the Bombay High Court in cases like Hexaware Technologies and the Telangana High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy). This view holds that the Faceless Scheme notification under Section 151A is mandatory, stripping the JAO of the power to issue Section 148 notices.

Contrast: This is in direct contrast to the “Pro-Revenue” view (seen in the Punjab & Haryana High Court or Calcutta High Court rulings) which holds that the JAO retains jurisdiction for the “issuance” of the notice, while the “assessment” happens facelessly.

Applicability: Taxpayers receiving Section 148 notices from their local ITO/ACIT/DCIT should immediately check the jurisdictional High Court’s stance on this issue, as it could be a valid ground to quash the entire proceeding at the threshold.

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN

Raj Kumar

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Actg. CJ.
and BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU, J.

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14891 of 2025

NOVEMBER 13, 2025

Jaideep Malik for the Petitioner. Sandeep Pathak and Palash Gupta, Advs. for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Issue notice to the respondent.

2. Mr. Sandeep Pathak learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

3. Both the learned counsel clearly states that the issue raised in the present writ petition stands finally adjudicated by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sharda Devi Chhajer v. ITO [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11787 of 2024, dated 19-3-2025] connected writ petition wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench has held as under:

“18. This Court further observes that any jurisdictional error in the notices has to be cured and thus, the notices which have been issued for assessment and reassessment and which are the impugned notices under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, do not withstand the broader scheme of law, which requires automated allocation based on algorithm and random assignment of the assessing officer. Part 2(i)(a) of the Scheme clear demarcates as to how the assessment and reassessment has to take place.

19. This Court is conscious of the fact that any reform or change for betterment is always resisted by the persons in control, particularly those who do not visualize the pragmatic and progressive paths which require vision and wisdom. The legislature in its own vision and wisdom, for enhancing the efficiency of the taxation system by making it more transparent and impartial, decided to have infused technology in the shape of an algorithm for randomised allocations of cases, by using suitable technological tools, including artificial intelligence and machine learning, with a view to optimise the use of resources. The common tendency to cling to control and old methods has to be dealt with firmly and ways & means including loopholes to fall back upon the old regime of control is an imminent danger which has to be thwarted off. The legislative intention, legislative vision and legislative wisdom has to be given full meaning in terms of technology and progressiveness, and thus, once an effective and strong step has been taken towards faceless regime, then maintaining the strings of local control to the prejudice of a common man would not only undermine the legislative wisdom but the gains in terms of such a progressive and pragmatic step would stand to reduce. Once the gear of progress has been applied in a democratic set up, the same has to be strongly supported and sustained. The CBDT Circular read with Section 151A of the Act of 1961 has to be given full meaning and any ways & means to defeat the technology or to manually try to control the same would go against the legislative purpose.

20. Thus, this Court holds that the mandate of Section 151A of the Act of 1961 has to be strictly followed as there cannot be a way out of doing the same. This Court also holds that the JAO shall not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, as it would not only render Section 151A weak, but may also lead to its diminishing activation. For the purpose of assessment and reassessment under Sections 147, 148 & 148A and in light of the sanction under Section 151A, adherence has to be made to algorithm based random assessing system, and therefore, the impugned notices deserve to be quashed.

21. Consequently, the present writ petitions are allowed. Accordingly, the impugned Notices are quashed and set aside, as far as the jurisdiction of JAOs for the purpose of Sections 148 & 148A of the Act of 1961 to issue the same is concerned. The question raised herein stands answered in the terms indicated above, with liberty to the respondents to issue fresh notices in compliance of the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022, by keeping the FAO as assessing officer.

21. 1 However, the time spent during the pendency of the present litigation in the Court, shall be excluded for the purpose of computing limitation for 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 passed an order in CWP No.21509/2023 titled as Jasjit Singh v. Union of India (Punj & Har) decided on 29.07.2024 wherein it was held as under:-

” 16. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench and hold that such circular or instructions by the Board could not have been issued to override statutory provisions or to make them otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments having financial implications are required to be followed strictly and mandatorily. By exercising the powers contained in Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961 as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), the authorities cannot be allowed to usurp the legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience causing hardship to the assessees. It also leaves confusion in the minds of the taxpayers. In the opinion of this Court, instructions and circulars can be issued only for the purpose of supplementing the statutory provisions and for their implementation.

17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no occasion to distinguish or take a different view as suggested by the learned counsel for the revenue from what has already been held by the Coordinate Bench.

18. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench (supra) notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and the proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, have been found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961 and accordingly notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024 and 30.03.2023 and order dated 30.03.2023, are set aside for want of jurisdiction.

19. The respondents-revenue would be, however at liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised.

20. All the writ petitions are allowed. The interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the present order.”

5. Keeping in view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case.

6. The notice dated 20.06.2025 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and all the consequential orders passed there on the said basis stands quashed and set aside.

7. All pending applications also stand disposed of.