Gujarat High Court
Siddharth Maneklal Patel vs National E-Assessment Centre on 7 October, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3894/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3894 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
SIDDHARTH MANEKLAL PATEL
Versus
NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DHINAL A SHAH(12077) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 07/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dhinal Shah for
the petitioner and learned Senior Standing
Counsel Mr. Varun Patel for the respondent.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior
Standing Counsel Mr. Varun Patel waives service
of notice of rule for and on behalf of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3894/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
respondent.
3. Having regard to the controversy arising in
this petition which is in a narrow compass, with
the consent of the learned advocates for the
parties, the same is taken up for hearing.
4. By way of this petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, the petitioner has
challenged the validity of Assessment Order
passed by the respondent under Section 143(3)
read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (for short 'the Act') on 6.3.2025 for the
A.Y. 2023-24 whereby the respondent has assessed
the total income of the petitioner at
Rs.2,13,37,575/- and has raised a demand of
Rs.64,72,319/-.
5. The brief facts giving rise to the present
petition are as under:
5.1 The petitioner is an individual and had filed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3894/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
his return of income under Section 139(1) of the
Act for A.Y. 2023-24 on 16.10.2023 declaring the
total income of Rs.33,92,280/- which included
business income from Shares and Securities and
Virtual Digital Assets (VDA). The case of the
petitioner was chosen for scrutiny assessment
under Section 143(2) of the Act and consequently
the petitioner received a notice on 19.6.2024.
5.2 It is the case of the petitioner that he
received a subsequent notice on 7.12.2024 under
Section 142(1) of the Act, requesting the
submissions of documents for verification
regarding ongoing scrutiny proceedings under
Section 143(3) of the Act. Complying the request
made by the respondent, the petitioner duly
furnished the requisite documents on 1.7.2024 and
31.1.2025.
5.3 It is the case of the petitioner that he
received another show-cause notice on 5.1.2025
inquiring as to why proposed variations amounting
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3894/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
to Rs.54,85,700/- being expenses/ loss from sale
of VDA assets should not be disallowed. It is the
case of the petitioner that he gave a detailed
explanation in response to the said notice and
also requested for hearing through Video
Conferencing, as per provisions of Section 144B
of the Act.
5.4 It is the case of the petitioner that on
13.1.2025, the petitioner received another notice
under Section 142(1) of the Act requesting the
submission of certain particulars. Subsequently,
on 31.1.2025, the petitioner complied and
furnished the requested details, however, again
on 25.2.2025, another notice was received under
Section 142(1) of the Act requesting certain
additional information in relation to purchase
and sale of VDA.
5.5 It is the case of the petitioner that notice
dated 25.2.2025 was received without any due date
to furnish the information as sought for. It is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3894/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
the case of the petitioner that before he could
respond to the notice of 25.2.2025, an Assessment
Order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B
of the Act was passed on 6.3.2025, after making
an addition of Rs. 1,80,21,957/- and raising the
demand of Rs.64,72,319/- towards the petitioner.
Thus, being aggrieved by the action of the
respondent in passing the impugned Assessment
Order dated 6.3.2025, without affording an
opportunity to present the case through Video
Conferencing, the present writ petition is
preferred.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Dhinal Shah submitted
that the impugned order and consequently, the
incidental proceedings are perverse and are
required to be quashed and set-aside. No
opportunity was granted to present argument or
provide hearing through Video Conferencing prior
to issuance of Assessment Order though specific
request was made by the petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3894/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
7. Per contra, learned Senior Standing Counsel
conceded to the fact that opportunity of hearing
through Video Conferencing was not made to the
petitioner and the respondent has passed the
Assessment order dated 6.3.2025 without granting
opportunity of hearing through Video
Conferencing.
8. In view of the same, it cannot be disputed
that the impugned order is passed in clear breach
and violation of principles of natural justice
and, therefore, is dehors settled principles of
law. Therefore, without entering into merits,
only on this ground, the impugned Assessment
Order dated 6.3.2025 for the A.Y. 2023-24 passed
under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of
the Act is hereby quashed and set-aside and the
matter is remanded to the respondent Assessing
Officer to pass a fresh denovo order in
accordance with law, after considering the reply
of the petitioner as well as providing
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3894/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
opportunity of hearing if desired by the
petitioner. Such exercise shall be completed
within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy
of this order.
The petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule
is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No
order as to costs.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
SAJ GEORGE
