Gujarat High Court
Vr Bharat Private Limited vs The National Faceless Assessment ... on 16 June, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10896/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10896 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
VR BHARAT PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
KARAN G SANGHANI(7945) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 16/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tushar
Hemani with learned advocate Ms. Vaibhavi
Parikh for the petitioner and learned
Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani
for the respondents.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10896/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
2. Having regard to the controversy involved
in the petition which is in narrow
compass, with the consent of the learned
advocates for the parties, the matter is
taken up for hearing.
3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior
Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani waives
service of notice of rule on behalf of
respondents.
4. By this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has
prayed for quashing and setting aside the
Assessment Order dated 28.03.2022 as well
as demand notice for the Assessment Year
2015-16.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10896/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
5. Brief facts of the case are as under:
5.1 The petitioner-company, earlier
known as Dhanlaxmi Infrastructure Private
Limited, was engaged in the business of
development, maintenance and leasing of
Commercial Retail Centers and filed return
of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 30.11.2015
declaring total loss of
Rs. (-)11,55,04,045/-.
5.2 The case of the petitioner was
selected for scrutiny. Assessment Order
under section 143(3) read with section
144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for
short 'the Act'] was passed on 13.02.2019
whereby, the total income was assessed at
Rs. (-) 8,60,64,574/-.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10896/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
5.3 Being aggrieved by the Assessment
Order, the petitioner has preferred an
Appeal before the CIT(Appeals) on
19.03.2019 which is pending.
5.4 The respondent-Assessing Officer
issued the notice dated 30.03.2021 under
section 148 of the Act to reopen the
assessment for A.Y. 2015-16. The
petitioner therefore, filed return of
income on 29.04.2021 for A.Y. 2015-16 and
requested for the reasons recorded for
reopening of the assessment.
5.5 The Assessing Officer thereafter,
issued corrigendum dated 18.08.2021
wherein it was stated that the Assessment
Year mentioned in the notice issued under
section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10896/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
may be read as Assessment Year 2016-17
instead of Assessment Year 2015-16.
However, the petitioner was not asked to
file the consequent return of income of
A.Y. 2016-17 in the corrigendum.
5.6 It appears that thereafter, the
assessment proceedings were continued by
the Assessing Officer by issuing notices
under section 143(2) dated 20.01.2022,
10.02.2022, 10.03.2022, 17.03.2022 for
A.Y. 2015-16. The petitioner filed reply
to such notices wherein it was also
clarified that the amount referred to in
the notices by the respondent-Assessing
Officer pertains to A.Y. 2016-17.
5.7 The petitioner, in the reply dated
23.03.2022, also prayed for virtual
hearing as per the provision of section
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10896/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
144B(6)(vii) of the Act. It is the case of
the petitioner that the petitioner also
made a request for video conference on
24.03.2022 on e-filing portal. However,
the respondent-Assessing Officer, without
considering the reply filed by the
petitioner as well as without providing an
opportunity of hearing through video
conference, passed the impugned Assessment
Order dated 28.03.2022 by making addition
of Rs. 5,92,98,438/- by reducing loss of
Rs.8,60,64,574/- to Rs. (-)2,67,66,144/-
for A.Y. 2015-16.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred
this petition.
6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tushar Hemani
for the petitioner submitted that the
respondent-Assessing Officer has issued
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10896/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
the corrigendum dated 18.08.2021 whereby,
it was clarified that the reopening notice
dated 30.03.2021, referred to the
Assessment Year 2016-17 and not 2015-16.
It was submitted that however, all the
notices issued in the regular course of
assessment pertain to the notice issued
for the Assessment Year 2015-16 and the
petitioner also replied to such notices
pointing out that the respondent-Assessing
Officer has reopened the assessment for
the Assessment Year 2016-17 and the
details sought for also pertain to the
Assessment Year 2016-17. It was pointed
out that the alleged excess claim of Rs.
5,92,98,430/- also pertains to A.Y. 2016-
17 and not A.Y. 2015-16 which has resulted
into addition in the impugned Assessment
Order. It was further submitted that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10896/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
inspite of the specific request made by
the petitioner to provide personal hearing
through video conference, the impugned
order is passed in violation of the
principles of natural justice and contrary
to the statutory provision as per section
144B(6)(vii) of the Act which provides
mandatory requirement for providing
personal hearing through video conference
when requested by the assessee.
7. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing
Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani for the
respondent relied upon averments made in
the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of
the respondent wherein, it was stated that
by corrigendum dated 18.08.2021,
assessment for the Assessment Year 2016-17
was reopened but inadvertently, in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10896/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
Assessment Order, the Assessing Officer
has referred to the Assessment Year 2015-
8. Having heard learned advocates for the
respective parties and considering the
facts of the case, it appears that the
respondent-Assessing Officer has passed
the impugned Assessment Order dated
28.03.2022 for the Assessment Year 2015-16
though there is no notice for reopening
the assessment for the said Assessment
Year because, by corrigendum dated
18.08.2021, the notice issued on
30.03.2021 for A.Y. 2015-16 was corrected
to be the notice for A.Y. 2016-17.
9. Moreover, the respondent-Assessing Officer
has also not provided any opportunity of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10896/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
hearing to the petitioner as per the
provisions of section 144B(6)(vii) of the
Act though the petitioner has requested
for the same as is evident from the
screenshot placed at Annexure M at page 75
which shows that the petitioner has
requested for personal hearing on
24.03.2022 and without considering such
request, the impugned assessment order is
passed on 28.03.2022. Without entering
into the merits of the matter, we are of
the opinion that, the matter should be
remanded back to the Assessing Officer to
pass a fresh de novo order after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
for A.Y. 2016-17 and the petitioner should
also be permitted to raise all the
contentions which can be raised in
accordance with law.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10896/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
10. With the aforesaid observations, the
petition succeeds and is accordingly
allowed. The impugned order dated
28.03.2022 is hereby quashed and set aside
and the matter is remanded back to the
Assessing Officer to pass a fresh de novo
order for A.Y. 2016-17 after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
in accordance with law. Such exercise
shall be completed within Twelve weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this
order. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
JYOTI V. JANI
