Gujarat High Court

Vijay Thakkar vs National Faceless Assessment Centre on 30 September, 2025

Author: Bhargav D. Karia

Bench: Bhargav D. Karia

                                                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




                           C/SCA/4462/2025                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025

                                                                                                              undefined




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4462 of 2025


                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

                      and
                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
                      ==========================================================

                                  Approved for Reporting                    Yes           No

                      ==========================================================
                                                  VIJAY THAKKAR
                                                       Versus
                                   NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE & ANR.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR KETAN H SHAH(2705) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                      MR. AMAN K SHAH(9992) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                      MS MAITHILI D MEHTA, SR. STANDING COUNSEL for the Respondent(s)
                      No. 1,2
                      ==========================================================
                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
                                and
                                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI

                                              Date : 30/09/2025
                                             ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI)

1 Heard Mr.Ketan Shah, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Ms.Maithili Mehta, learned Senior

Standing Counsel for the respondent.

2 Rule returnable forthwith. Ms.Maithili Mehta,

learned Senior Standing Counsel, waives service of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4462/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025

undefined

notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.

3 The present petition is preferred praying for the

following reliefs:

"a) quash and set aside the impugned order dated 11.03.2025 at Annexure-D to this petition and remand and direct the Respondents to pass fresh necessary order u/s 143(3) after giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner assessee and after considering all the replies and evidences of the assessee.

b) pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, to stay the implementation and operation of the order dated 11.03.2025 and recovery of demand u/s 156 for the amount of Rs.3,87,96,693/- as per Annexure-

c) any other and further relief deemed just and proper be granted in the interest of justice;

d) to provide for the cost of this petition."

4 The brief facts leading to filing of this writ

petition are as under:

4.1 The petitioner is an individual Company having

income from business and profession as well as rental

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4462/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025

undefined

income. For the Assessment Year 2023-24, the

petitioner filed original return of income on

30.12.2023 declaring total income of Rs.18,58,300/-.

4.2 The case of the petitioner was selected for

scrutiny assessment and a notice came to be issued

under Sec.144B of the Income-Tax Act, 1961

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) on

27.06.2024 for completion of assessment in faceless

assessment. Notice under Sec.143(2) was also issued

on the same date.

4.3 It is the case of the petitioner that on

10.07.2024, notice was issued under Sec.142(1)

requesting the assessee to provide details such as

nature of business, Profit & Loss Account, Balance

Sheet, details of bank accounts etc., as enumerated in

the notice. In response to the same, the petitioner

filed his reply on 06.10.2024 along with various

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4462/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025

undefined

documents. Thereafter, again a notice under

Sec.142(1) was issued on 27.01.2025 calling upon the

petitioner to explain the source of investment in

purchase of immovable property as well as source of

other investments.

4.4 Thereafter, a show-cause notice-cum-Draft

Assessment Order dated 21.02.2025 was issued to the

petitioner as to why the proposed variation of income

should not be made and added to the income of the

petitioner.

4.5 Reply to such notice was filed by the petitioner

on 10.03.2025 along with ten enclosures. It is the

case of the petitioner that in utter disregard of all the

voluminous replies and evidences filed by the

petitioner, the respondent passed the Assessment

Order dated 11.03.2025 under Sec.143(3) read with

Sec.144B of the Act.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4462/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025

undefined

4.6 It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned

order categorically observed that no reply to the

show-cause notice was given which was factually

incorrect since the petitioner has asked adjournment

on 28.02.2025 as well as given reply on 10.03.2025

along with ten enclosures.

4.7 It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned

order is passed without considering and making

factual incorrect statement with regard to reply dated

10.03.2025 and 11.03.2025.

5 In view of the facts mentioned hereinabove,

learned advocate Mr.Ketan Shah for the petitioner

made the following submissions:

5.1 That the impugned order dated 11.03.2025

suffers from illegality as it is passed in violation of

principles of natural justice, insomuch as, the

material evidence regarding the proposed evidences,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4462/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025

undefined

more specifically the replies dated 10.03.2025 and

11.03.2025 were never considered by the respondent

before passing the Assessment Order which caused

grave prejudice to the petitioner- assessee.

5.2 That in view of the voluminous evidences filed by

the assessee - petitioner with regard to each and

every addition made in the order, the additions made

ought to have been deleted, which is not so done by

the Assessing Officer, which shows non-applicability

of mind by the respondent - Assessing Officer. Thus,

as the order is suffering from the vice of illegality, the

same needs to be quashed.

5.3 It was further submitted that in view of settled

legal proposition of law, a reasoned Assessment

Order needs to be passed by the Assessing Officer

only after due consideration of evidences and replies

filed by the assessee and also giving the reasons for

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4462/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025

undefined

non acceptance of replies by the assessee. In the

present case, since the Assessing Officer has failed in

passing a reasoned Assessment Order as per settled

legal proposition, the same is violative of principles of

natural justice and hence is required to be quashed.

6 Per Contra, Ms. Maithili Mehta learned Senior

Standing Counsel, relying on the affidavit-in-reply and

in particular para 11 and 15 has conceded to the fact

that the Assessing Officer being aware of the facts of

the reply dated 10.03.2025, the same was not

considered and other statutory formality for passing

the Assessment Order in the subject case had been

completed. For ready reference, para 15 of the reply

given by the respondent is produced herein below:

"15. I state that in view of the mentioned above despite the then Assessing Officer being aware of the facts that the assessee had submitted a reply on 10.03.2025, the same was not considered and was delayed and the other statutory formalities for passing the assessment order in the subject case had been completed."

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4462/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025

undefined

7 In view of the fact that the learned Senior

Standing Counsel for the department could not

controvert that the reply even though very much

available on record was not considered by the

Assessing Officer, the present petition is required to

be allowed and is hereby allowed. The impugned

order dated 11.03.2025 is hereby quashed and set

aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent

to pass a fresh order after considering the replies