[2025:RJ-JD:47700-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21647/2025 Anupama Chawla S/o Gurwinder Singh Toor, Aged About 40 Years, R/o R D-20, Sector 12, Ridhi Sidhi-2Nd, Sriganganagar, 335001, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus

1. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur (Pcit Jaipur), 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Bhawani Singh Road, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur 302005

2. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, (National Faceless Assessment Centre), 4Th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Circus, New Delhi - 110001

3. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Through Secretary, Cbdt Headquarters, North Block- (Department Of Revenue), New Delhi - 110001

4. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bikaner - 334001 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalpit Shishodia For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI

Order

06/11/2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Kalpit Shishodia submits that the controversy involved in this matter is squarely covered by the judgment dated 24.09.2025 passed by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jaskaran Singh Brar Vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Jaipur & Ors.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18987/2025 which is reproduced hereinbelow :

"1. All office objections waived.

2. Mr. Kothari submits that petitioner is unhappy with notice dated 26^th March 2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).

3. Mr. Kothari further submits that apart from various grounds taken in the petition, one of the grounds is that notice has been issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). He also submits that this Court in Shree Cement Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others¹ and Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another² following judgment of Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 15(1)(2)³ has held that such a notice issued by JAO will be invalid.

4. Mr. Bissa submits that there is a Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of Talati and Talati LLP vs. Office of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad wherein Court considered validity of show cause notice issued under Section 148 of the Act and the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act. He further submits that Gujarat High Court did not interfere with notice but directed assessee to file reply to notice.

5. We find that facts of the Gujarat High Court case in Talati and Talati LLP (supra) are entirely different from the facts of present case.

In Talati and Talati LLP (supra), Gujarat High Court has held that notification dated 29^th March 2022 (prescribing e- assessment scheme) does not cover a case where notice under Section 148 is issued by the JAO, the information received by him in the matter of search and seizure under Section 132 of the Act, 1961, or requisitioned under Section 132A.

6. The Gujarat High Court has relied on Explanation 2 to Section 148 (as it existed at the relevant time) to approve the contention of the Revenue that the concept of automated allocation, i.e. application of algorithm for randomized allocation of cases by using suitable technological tools including Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, as defined in Clause 2(1)(b) of the Scheme dated 29^th March 2022, cannot be applied in a case of search and seizure under Section 132.

1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported)

2 2025 SCCOnLine Raj3386

3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)

4 MANU/GJ/2382/2024

7. While upholding the said contention the Gujarat High Court was perhaps under an understanding that the FAO does not draw a satisfaction note before proceeding to issue a notice under Section 148 in search cases. The Gujarat High Court has taken cognizance of the contention that pre-requisite conditions