Gujarat High Court
Krunalkumar Virambhai Desai vs The Assessment Unit, Income Tax ... on 16 October, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7268/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7268 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
KRUNALKUMAR VIRAMBHAI DESAI
Versus
THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. TUSHAR HEMANI, SR. ADV. FOR MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for
the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS MAITHILI D MEHTA(3206) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 16/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI)
1. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Tushar
Hemani for learned advocate Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh
for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing
Counsel Ms. Maithili Mehta for the respondent.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7268/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili Mehta waives
service of notice of rule for and on behalf of
the respondent.
3. Considering the controversy arising in this
petition which is in narrow compass, with the
consent of the learned advocates for the
respective parties, the petition is taken up for
hearing today.
4. By this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges
the Assessment Order dated 21.3.2024 passed by
the respondent under Section 147 read with
Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short)
for the Assessment Year 2018-2019 as well as the
demand notice under Section 156 of the Act dated
21.3.2024.
5. The brief facts leading to the filing of the
present writ petition are as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7268/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
5.1 The petitioner is an individual and had filed
return of income under the provisions of the Act
on 31.10.2018 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. It
is the case of the petitioner that he had
specified "[email protected]" as well as
"[email protected]" as the prescribed email
IDs of the petitioner.
5.2 It is the case of the petitioner that a
notice came to be issued by respondent under
Section 148A(b) of the Act on 16.3.2022 which was
sent to the petitioner on registered email IDs.
Response to the notice under Section 148A(b) was
furnished by the petitioner on 22.3.2023. After
taking note of reply dated 22.3.2022, the
respondent passed an order under Section 148A(d)
of the Act on 1.4.2023 and issued notice under
Section 148 of the Act on 1.4.2023, which were
also communicated through registered email IDs of
the petitioner. The petitioner filed return of
income in response to notice under Section 148 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7268/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
the Act on 14.4.2022.
5.3 It is the case of the petitioner that a
notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated
6.12.2022 was issued by the respondent on the
registered email ID of the petitioner. Response
was furnished to the said notice on 19.12.2022.
The respondent issued another notice on 9.1.2023
under Section 142(1) of the Act on the registered
email ID of the petitioner. Another notice dated
18.1.2023 under Section 142(1) of the Act was
sent to the petitioner on the registered email
ID. Response was furnished by the petitioner on
21.1.2023. The respondent issued another notice
dated 22.6.2023 on the registered email ID of the
petitioner. The petitioner furnished response on
23.6.2023.
5.6 It is the case of the petitioner that
subsequent to his response on 23.6.2023, nothing
was heard from the side of the respondent for a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7268/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
considerable period of time. Suddenly another
notice under Section 142(1) was issued on
21.2.2024. However, the notice was sent on
"[email protected]" instead of
the registered email IDs of the petitioner. It is
the case of the petitioner that, therefore, the
petitioner was never served with the notice dated
21.2.2024 and the notice remained unanswered. It
is the case of the petitioner that another notice
dated 12.3.2024 was not sent on the registered
email ID of the petitioner and, therefore, the
notice remained unanswered. It is in this fact
that the petitioner did not respond to the notice
dated 12.3.2024, which resulted into passing of
the impugned Assessment Order dated 21.3.2024
under the provisions of Section 147 read with
Section 144B of the Act. Consequently, the
impugned demand notice to the tune of
Rs.5,07,10,018/- was given under the provisions
of Section 156 of the Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7268/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
6. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Tushar Hemani for
the petitioner submitted that the impugned
Assessment Order for the Assessment Year 2018-19
has been passed in gross violation of the
principles of natural justice. The earlier
notices were sent on the registered email IDs of
the petitioner. However, the last notices were
not sent on the registered email IDs of the
petitioner but were sent to the third party,
which has resulted into passing of the impugned
Assessment Order as well as impugned demand
notice. Therefore, this is a clear case of
violation of principles of natural justice. It
was further submitted by learned Senior Counsel
Mr. Tushar Hemani that it is a trite law that no
adverse order must be passed against any person
unless such person is afforded reasonable
opportunity of being heard.
7. Per contra, learned Senior Standing Counsel
Ms. Maithili Mehta for the respondent could not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7268/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
controvert the submissions made by learned Senior
Counsel Mr. Tushar Hemani. Ms. Mehta also could
not controvert the fact that the notice dated
12.3.2024 was not received on the registered
email IDs of the petitioner. In wake of such
factual aspects, Ms. Mehta has requested this
Court to pass appropriate order.
8. Having heard the learned advocates for the
respective parties and having perused the
material on record, certain facts are not in
dispute. It is not in dispute that the notices
dated 21.2.2024 and 12.3.2024 were not sent to
the registered email IDs of the petitioner i.e.
[email protected] as well as
[email protected]. This factual aspect and
controversy is not disputed by the learned Senior
Standing Counsel Ms. Mehta. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7268/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
the rule against bias since a fair hearing is
must for it to be a unbiased hearing. The
essential ingredients of fair hearing is that a
person should be served with a proper notice.
That the person has a right of a proper notice.
9. In the instant case, it is not disputed that
notices under Section 142(1) of the Act, dated
21.2.2024 and 12.3.2024, were sent on wrong email
ID, 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
21.3.2024 under Section 147 read with Section
144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2018-2019
is not tenable and is required to be quashed and
set-aside and is, accordingly, quashed and set-
aside and consequently, the demand notice under
Section 156 of the Act dated 21.3.2024 is also
required to be quashed and set-aside and the
matter is remanded to respondent-Assessing
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7268/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
Officer to pass a fresh de-nova order, in
accordance with law after considering the reply
of the petitioner as well as to provide
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
