Writ Petition Against Jurisdictional Assessing Officer’s

Writ Petition Against Jurisdictional Assessing Officer’s Reassessment Disallowed but Remanded to Pending CIT(A) Appeal

Issue

Validity of Notice: Whether the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) has the legal authority to initiate reassessment proceedings by issuing a notice under Section 148, and whether subsequent orders can be passed outside the mandatory faceless assessment regime.
Maintainability of Writ: Whether the High Court should quash a final reassessment order under Article 226 when the assessee has already filed a statutory appeal before the CIT(A) which is currently pending.

Facts

Reassessment Notice: The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) issued a reassessment notice under Section 148 to the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18.
Order Passed: Following the notice, a final reassessment order was passed against the assessee.
Parallel Remedies: The assessee challenged this final reassessment order by filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. While this statutory appeal was still pending, the assessee simultaneously filed a writ petition before the High Court.
Assessee’s Contention: The assessee argued that the JAO lacked jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings and that the subsequent non-faceless routing violated the centralized faceless assessment scheme.

Decision

On Jurisdiction and Faceless Scheme: Held, yes (in favor of the assessee). The court recognized that under the current statutory framework, the reassessment proceedings could not have been legally initiated by the JAO, nor could the orders be passed outside the prescribed faceless regime.
On Writ Maintainability: Held, yes (in favor of the Revenue). Because the assessee had already preferred an alternative statutory remedy via a final appeal to the CIT(A), it would be inappropriate for the High Court to bypass that process and render the pending appeal redundant.
On Ultimate Disposal: The High Court remanded the matter, directing the petitioner to file a specific application raising these jurisdictional grounds before the concerned CIT(A). The CIT(A) was ordered to consider these legal issues and pass appropriate orders within a strict timeframe of 15 days.

Key Takeaways

Exclusivity of the Faceless Regime: The initiation of reassessment proceedings and issuance of notices under Section 148 must strictly align with the Faceless Assessment Scheme. Jurisdictional Assessing Officers (JAOs) cannot arbitrarily bypass the centralized faceless mechanism to issue notices or finalize assessments independently.

Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies: High Courts are generally reluctant to exercise their extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 if the assessee has already triggered a parallel statutory remedy (such as an appeal before the CIT(A)). A writ will typically not be entertained if it risks making a pending lower-court appeal redundant.

Time-Bound Adjudication on Remand: When a jurisdictional flaw is apparent but an alternative remedy is active, the High Court may safeguard the assessee’s rights by remanding the case to the appellate authority with strict directives for accelerated disposal (e.g., within 15 days).

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN

Ashok Gupta

Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Actg. CJ.
and MRS. SANGEETA SHARMA, J.

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19507 OF 2025

JANUARY 15, 2026

Rohan Chatter for the Petitioner. Siddharth Bapna and Ms. Tanushka Saxena for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Issue notice to respondent.

2. Mr. Siddharth Bapna, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

3. Both the learned counsel clearly state that the issue raised in the present writ petition stands finally adjudicated by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11787/2024: ShardaSharda Devi Chhajer v. ITO connected writ petitions decided on 19.03.2025, 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. UOI (Punjab & Haryana), 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notices were illegally issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of Faceless Assessing Officer.

6. We note that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for Assessment Year 2017-2018) was issued on 20.03.2024 and the assessment order was passed on 02.03.2025 and the same has been challenged before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 06.03.2025 which is currently pending. The same has been challenged in the present writ petition.

7. Admittedly, in this case, the final order was passed after the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Although the faceless regime has been introduced. In view of the judgments passed in the cases of Jasjit Singh (supra) as well as Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra), the proceedings could not have been initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer nor the faceless regime could have later on passed orders. However, it is noticed that the appeal has been preferred against the final order and, therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court to pass orders resulting in making the appeal redundant.

8. In these circumstances, we direct the petitioner to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) who will take into consideration and pass appropriate orders accordingly within a period of 15 days following the judgment already rendered by this Court relating to quashing of the proceedings based on the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

9. The present Civil Writ Petition stands disposed of.

10. All pending applications also stand disposed of.