Gujarat High Court
Shraddha Developers vs The National Faceless Assessment ... on 7 July, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1833/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1833 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
SHRADDHA DEVELOPERS
Versus
THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. TUSHAR HEMANI, SR. ADV. WITH MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for
the Petitioner(s) No. 1
KARAN G SANGHANI(7945), SR. STANDING COUNSEL for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 07/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI)
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tushar
Hemani with Ms. Vaibhavi K. Parikh for the
petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1833/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
Mr. Karan G. Sanghani for the respondents.
2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Senior
Standing Counsel Mr.Karan Sanghani waives
service of notice of rule for and on behalf of
the respondents.
3. Having regard to the controversy involved
in this petition, with the consent of the
learned advocates for the respective parties,
the matter is taken up for final hearing.
4. By this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has
challenged and prayed for quashing and setting
aside of impugned assessment order issued
under Section 147 r.w.s 144 & 144B of the
Income Tax Act (for short 'the Act') and
demand notice issued under Section 156 of the
Act, both dated 26.03.2022 for Assessment Year
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1833/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
2013-14.
5. Brief facts of this case are that the:
5.1 Petitioner is a partnership firm. On
29.12.2022, the petitioner received an email
from the department regarding an outstanding
demand of Rs. 27,26,08,265/- which the
petitioner was directed to pay within a period
of 7 (seven) days from service. Subsequently
upon checking the Income Tax Portal, the
petitioner found that an assessment order,
three penalty orders and various notices were
uploaded by the department which are as
follows:
➤ Assessment Order dated 26.03.2022 under
section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the
Act pursuant to which, demand of Rs.
20,64,07,097/- has arisen;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1833/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
➤ Penalty order dated 26.09.2022 whereby
penalty of Rs.6,61,56,165/- has been
levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act;
➤ Penalty order dated 21.09.2022 whereby
penalty of Rs.40,000/- has been levied
under section 271(1)(b) of the Act;
➤ Penalty order dated 15.09.2022 whereby
penalty of Rs.5,000/- has been levied by
the revenue under section 271F of the Act;
5.2 The petitioner, vide letter dated
03.01.2023, furnished reply against the
aforesaid recovery notice. However, it is the
case of the petitioner that the department has
passed the above orders for the year under
consideration in gross violation of principles
of natural justice as no notice was ever
served upon the petitioner herein prior to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1833/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
passing such orders and no opportunity of
being heard was provided to the petitioners.
5.3 It is the case of the petitioner that the
recovery notice was sent on the email ID
[email protected] which was used by the
petitioner while filing return of income for
AY 2012-13. Whereas the jurisdictional notice
dated 31.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of
the Act was neither addressed nor communicated
to anybody. However, various other notices
including penalty proceedings under Sections
271F, 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) which were
uploaded on the income tax portal were sent
via email at [email protected], which
neither belongs to the petitioner nor to any
of its employees, partners or auditors. Thus,
amongst all the notices, assessment
proceedings and penalty proceedings only the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1833/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
recovery notice dated 29.12.2022 was correctly
served to the petitioner.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
has preferred the present petition.
7. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tushar Hemani
with Ms. Vaibhavi K. Parikh for the petitioner
submitted that the impugned assessment order
under Section 147 of the Act is in gross
violation of principles of natural justice as
no opportunity of being heard was provided to
the petitioner. It was further submitted that
personal hearing is necessary in such cases
before passing adverse orders.
8. Learned senior advocate for the petitioner
submitted that the respondent has made
addition of Rs. 21,40,97,624/- in respect of
total sales value of the immovable property.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1833/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
However, even on merits such amount is
incorrect since the petitioner had already
completed the project on 31.03.2012 and sold
all the units there in during assessment year
2012-13, which was the preceding year then the
year in consideration in the present petition.
Also, the sale deeds which were executed
subsequent to 31.03.2012 in any case do not
amount to Rs. 21,40,97,624/-.
9. Per Contra, learned senior standing counsel
Mr. Karan G. Sanghani for the respondents
submitted that the petitioner could file an
appeal before the Appellate Authority as per
the provisions of section 249 of the Act. The
petitioner assessee could file appeal u/s 249
whenever such order or notice is received. As
per section 249 (2) of the Act, an appeal can
be filed within 30 days from the receipt of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1833/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
such order/notices. Thus, alternative
efficacious remedy is available with the
petitioner.
10. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the
respondent submitted that ample opportunities
were provided to the petitioner via the e-
filing portal before passing the impugned
assessment order and it is an admitted fact by
the petitioner that the notices and other
communications were received on the e-filing
portal. Thus, the petitioner could have
replied to the same on the e-filing portal.
11. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the
respondent places reliance on Section 144B of
the Act which provides for serving of notices
and orders to the assessee on the email
address available on the ITBA system.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1833/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
12. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the
respondent further submitted that the
petitioner challenged the notice u/s 148
issued for the AY 2013-14 and subsequent
communications and the Assessment Order dated
26.03.2022 for the AY 2013-14 stating that the
e-mail id to which the notice was sent doesn't
belong to petitioner. On verification of
records of the assessee, it is observed that
another notice under section 148 of the Act
was sent to the petitioner for the AY 2018-19
dated 31.03.2022 to the same e-mail id and
petitioner complied to the notice by filing
its ITR in response to the said notice.
Therefore, claim of the petitioner that
communication wasn't received since it was
sent to wrong e mail ID is not tenable.
13. Having heard learned advocates for the
parties and perused the material on record,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1833/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
certain facts are not in dispute. It is not in
dispute that notice under Section 148 of the
Act on 31.3.2022 was sent on
email:[email protected]. Letter under
Section 142(1) of the Act was sent on
18.10.2022 for the Assessment Year 2018-19 on
[email protected]. It was at this time that the
petitioner realised about the proceedings
under Section 147 of the Act. Only when a
notice was sent on 18.10.022 at the correct
email ID of the petitioner, the proceedings
were known to the petitioner. This factual
aspect and controversy is not disputed by
learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan
Sanghani. Therefore, it is fundamental
proposition of law that the other side should
be heard before any order is passed. The maxim
of Audi Alteram Partem is broad enough to
include the rule against bias since a fair
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1833/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
hearing is must for it to be unbiased hearing.
The essential ingredients of fair hearing is
that a person should be served with a proper
notice. That the person has to have right of a
proper notice.
14. In the instance case, it is not disputed
that notice under Section 148 of the Act on
31.3.2022 was sent on a wrong email address
and, therefore, the petitioner was not in a
position to controvert the same. In view of
the same, the impugned assessment order passed
by the respondent in case of the petitioner
dated 26.3.2022 under Section 147 read with
Section 144B of the Act for the Assessment
Year 2013-14 is not tenable and is required to
be quashed and set-aside and is accordingly
quashed and set-aside.
15. In view of the same, the notice issued
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1833/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
under Section 156 of the Act dated 26.3.2022
is also required to be quashed and set-aside.
The present petition is hereby allowed with no
order as to costs.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
SAJ GEORGE
