AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.C.D. Sekhar, J
The present writ petition is filed questioning the assessment order in DIN-ITBA/AST/S/144/2025-26/1083286835(1), dated 04.12.2025, passed under Section 144 r/w. Section 144 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18, together with consequential demand notice dated 04.12.2025, issued under Section 156 of the said Act.
It is a case of the petitioner that, the 3rd respondent passed assessment order dated 23.12.2019, under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in relation to the assessment year 2017-18, as the petitioner did not account for the cash deposits reflected in her account during the period from 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeal) on 21.01.2020, along with the said appeal, the petitioner seems to have filed documentary evidence, bank statements and confirmations explaining the credits reflected in her bank account. Taking into consideration of the evidence placed on record, the appellate authority by order dated 16.01.2025, was pleased to set aside the assessment order dated 23.12.2019, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration with a direction to afford sufficient opportunity to the petitioner before completing the assessment afresh.
It is further case of the petitioner that, pursuant to the remand, fresh assessment proceedings were initiated under faceless assessment framework and an intimation notice dated 25.07.2025, was issued under Section 144 B of the Act. It is specific case of the petitioner that, no separate notice under Section 144 (2) of the Act was issued to her, nor personal hearing was offered to her.
It is further case of the petitioner that, notice under Section 142 (1) dated 04.09.2025, was issued to the petitioner calling for details. To which, the petitioner filed reply dated 19.09.2025, enclosing all the requisite documents in support of her case. Further, another notice dated 16.10.2025, was issued to the petitioner proposing to treat the total credits in the bank account amounting to Rs.44,58,230/-, as unexplained income by granting time up to 23.10.2025, for submission of reply. It is further case of the petitioner that, the petitioner attempted to upload the reply on 23.10.2025, but the Income Tax, e-filing portal displayed that the e-submission facility had been closed by assessing authority and the option to seek video conference hearing under the faceless assessment framework was also disabled and therefore, the petitioner was unable to upload the reply to the notice dated 16.10.2025.
Immediately, the petitioner lodged online grievance on 23.10.2025 itself, bringing it to the notice about the closure of e-submission facility and denial of video conference hearing. The said grievance was disposed of on 24.10.2025, by advising to take recourse to the Samadhan Faceless Assessment email ID, without restoring the access to the portal. In view of the same, the petitioner submitted reply dated 28.10.2025, through email to the concerned authorities. Without reopening the portal and without granting opportunity of hearing, the 2nd respondent passed impugned assessment order dated 04.12.2025, under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, together with consequential demand notice under Section 156. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
Perused the record.
It is the specific case of the petitioner that, she was not allowed by the portal to file reply to the show cause notice dated 16.10.2025, and she was also denied the opportunity of being heard and contends that, the impugned assessment order dated 04.12.2025, was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. It is further case of the petitioner that, despite raising a complaint on 23.10.2025 to the online grievance cell, without restoring access to the portal, the impugned order came to be passed.
On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that, based on the earlier reply furnished by the petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed.
On perusal of the record, it is succinctly clear that the petitioner was not allowed to file reply by the portal and a grievance was also raised on 23.10.2025, to that effect. Admittedly, the said grievance was not redressed. Further, before passing the impugned assessment order dated 04.12.2025, admittedly, personal hearing was not offered to the petitioner, as directed by the appellate authority in its order dated 16.01.2025. In such circumstances, it has to be held that, the impugned assessment order had been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
For the foregoing reasons, without going into the merits of the matter, this Court feels that, it is appropriate to set aside the impugned assessment order dated 04.12.2025, passed by the 2nd respondent and accordingly, the same is set aside. Consequently, the demand notice dated 04.12.2025, issued under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, shall also stand set aside. It is needless to mention that the petitioner is permitted to file reply to the show cause notice dated 16.10.2025, and thereafter, opportunity of being heard shall be provided before passing appropriate orders.
Accordingly, the writ petition is Allowed, directing the respondents to take up the assessment of the petitioner afresh, as indicated above.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.