Gujarat High Court
Gaurang Raghavjibhai Patel Through Poa ... vs Income Tax Officer Ward - 3(2)(1) on 16 October, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9576/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9576 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==================================================
Approved for Reporting NoYes
✔
==================================================
GAURANG RAGHAVJIBHAI PATEL THROUGH POA HOLDER HIREN
RAGHAVJIBHAI BHIKADIA
Versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 3(2)(1)
==================================================
Appearance:
MR MANISH J SHAH(1320) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
KARAN G SANGHANI(7945) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==================================================
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 advocate Mr. Manish Shah for the
petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun K.
Patel for the respondents.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing
Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani waives service of notice of Rule for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9576/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
the respondents.
4. Having regard to the controversy involved which is in
narrow compass, this matter is taken up for hearing with the
consent of learned advocates for both the parties.
5. The present petition is preferred under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash and set aside
the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 issued under Section
148A(d) of the Income Tax (For Short "the Act") as well as the
notice issued under Section 148A of the Act dated 31.03.2023.
6. The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition
are that the petitioner is an individual and has filed his return of
income on 31.08.2019 for the Assessment Year 2019-20 under
Section 139 (1) of the Act declaring the total income of
Rs.8,05,650/-. It is the case of the petitioner that the return filed
by the petitioner was processed and accepted without
conducting scrutiny of assessment while issuing notice under
Section 143(2) of the Act.
6.1. Subsequent to the acceptance of the return of income filed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9576/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
by the petitioner, the notice was issued under Section 148A(b)
of the Act on 18.03.2023 stating that there was an information
which suggested that income chargeable to tax for Assessment
Year 2019-20 has escaped assessment. It was further alleged
that the financial transactions of Rs.14,96,82,215/- had
remained unexplained.
6.2. In response to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act,
the petitioner communicated to the department on 27.03.2023
furnishing of the details available with him. The respondent vide
communication 29.03.2023 directed the petitioner to provide
specific bank-wise and entry-wise details as the same was not
demanded in the earlier notice due to some technical glitches.
However, despite the fact that the requisition made by the
respondent on 29.03.2023, only one day time was provided to
the petitioner to file its return i.e. on or before 30.03.2023. It is
the case of the petitioner that the respondent effectively
provided only one day time to furnish requisite material and
therefore on 30.03.2023 the petitioner communicated to the
respondent to provide 30 days time to effectively reply the
details demanded for furnishing the details vide communication
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9576/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
dated 29.03.2023.
6.3. It is the case of the petitioner that despite the request
being made by the petitioner on 30.03.2023, the respondent
without acceding to the request passed an order under Section
148A(d) of the Act on the very next date i.e. on 31.03.2023
based on the preliminary details provided by the petitioner. The
respondent recorded satisfaction to the effect that the case of
the petitioner was fit for issuing notice under Section 148 of the
Act and income to the tune of Rs.14,06,82,215/- had escaped the
assessment. In wake of such submissions, the order dated
31.03.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act is nothing
but breach of principles of natural justice.
7. It was further submitted by learned advocate Mr. Manish
Shah for the petitioner that the demand vide communication
dated 29.03.2023 was with regard to 17 different transactions
and comprehensive details of 13 pages. This was practically
impossible for the petitioner to respond in less than 24 hours of
time. Therefore, such action of respondent is nothing but
blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9576/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
statutory provisions contained under Section 148A(b) of the Act
requires giving minimum 7 days time to provide information.
9. Per contra, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan
Sanghani was not in a position to controvert the fact of giving
minimum 7 days' time to provide the information. However, he
has referred to and relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed on
behalf of the respondent. On the basis of the affidavit-in-reply
filed by the respondent, it was submitted that the petitioner had
already provided the basic information on 18.03.2023. It was
further submitted that the assessee had been provided detailed
information vide letter dated 29.03.2023 and instead of replying
the petitoner had sought extension of time. However, as the
time for passing the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was
barred by limitation on 31.03.2023, order under Section
148A(d) of the Act was passed on 31.03.2023. However, learned
Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani was not in a
position to controvert the fact of providing less than 24 hours'
time to the petitioner to give details and has requested the
Court to pass appropriate order.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9576/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
10. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and having perused the material on record, certain
factual aspects are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that
subsequent notice was issued by the respondent on 29.03.2023
requesting to provide certain details of 17 transactions wherein
less than 24 hours time was given to the petitioner for providing
the details. In the instant case notice under Section 148A(b) of
the Act was issued on 18.03.2023 wherein the petitioner was
directed to furnish reply on or before 27.03.2023. It further
transpires that the petitioner received communication dated
29.03.2023 and in the said communication, the respondent
authority has specifically observed that the said authority issued
notice and certain attachment was also supplied to the
petitioner, however, the respondent came to know thereafter
that the attachment has not reached to the petitioner. It was
also observed that it seems that due to some technical glitches,
the subject information sent as attachment could not reach to
the petitioner. In the said communication, the petitioner was
asked to give reply within 24 hours i.e. on or before 30.03.2023.
It was pointed out by leaned advocate for the petitioner that on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9576/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
30.03.2023, the petitioner requested the respondent authority
to grant more time and also pointed out about the provision
contained in Section 148A(b) of the Act, however without
considering the said reply, the impugned order has been passed
by the respondent authority. Thus, the time period is less than
the time stipulated under Section 148A(b) of the Act. Section
148A(b) of the Act reads as under :-
Section 148A The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any
notice under Section 148 :-
(a) xxx xxx
(b) Provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, by
serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as
may be specified in the notice, being not less than seven days
and not exceeding thirty days from the date on which such notice
is issued, or such time, as may be extended by him on the basis
of an application in this behalf, as to why a notice under Section
148 should not be issued on the basis of information which
suggest that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in
his case for the relevant assessment year and results of enquiry
conducted, if any, as per clause (a);"
9. Upon perusing the above provision, it is not in dispute that
the petitioner was not given adequate time as required under
Section 148A(b) of the Act, and was not heard before passing
the impugned order. It is a 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9576/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
rule against bias since a fair hearing is must for it to be
unbiased hearing. In the instant case, the fact is not in dispute
that the petitioner was not given appropriate time to respond to
the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act and the
impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioner.
10. In view of the same, the impugned order under Section
148A(d) of the Act dated 31.03.2023 passed by the respondent
as well as the notice of the same date issued under Section
148A of the Act are not tenable and the same are required to be
quashed and set-aside.
11. Considering the facts of the case, the petition succeeds
and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order and notice
dated 31.03.2023 are hereby quashed and set aside and the
matter is remanded to the respondent to comply with the
provisions of Section 148A(b) of the Act and pass a fresh order
after following due procedure of law.
12. Such exercise shall be completed within twelve (12)
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9576/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
13. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no
order as to costs.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
phalguni
