[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Gryphon Ceramics Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 20 January, 2026
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
GRYPHON CERAMICS PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
ASSESSMENT UNIT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MAUNIL G YAJNIK, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL for Respondent Nos.1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 20/01/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1 RULE. Mr.Maunil Yajnik, learned Senior Standing
Counsel, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the
respondents.
2 By way of the present writ petition, the writ petitioner
has assailed the Assessment Order issued under Section
143(3) read with Section 260 read with Section 144B of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for
short), issued by respondent No.1 dated 10.12.2024 for
Assessment Year 2018-19. The brief facts leading to filing of
the present writ petition are as under:
2.1 The petitioner is engaged in manufacturing of large
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026
undefined
slabs of ceramic tiles. The petitioner had e-filed the return of
income for the Assessment Year 2018-19 on 30.10.2018
declaring total income of Rs.19,110/-. Thereafter, the case of
the petitioner was selected for scrutiny. The petitioner
participated in the assessment proceedings. It is the case of
the petitioner that respondent No.1, on 20.09.2021, passed
the Assessment Order under Section 143(3) read with Section
144B of the Act assessing total income of the petitioner at
Rs.10,41,00,000/- without providing an opportunity of
personal hearing to the petitioner which is in gross violation
of the principles of natural justice.
2.2 Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition being
Special Civil Application No.16057 of 2021 before this Court
challenging the Assessment Order dated 20.09.2021, which
was set aside vide order dated 03.09.2024 and the matter was
remanded back to the respondents directing the respondents
to pass a de novo Assessment Order within a period of 12
weeks after providing a fresh opportunity of hearing through
video conferencing to the petitioner in accordance with law.
2.3 It appears that, thereafter, pursuant to the order passed
by this Court, the petitioner was issued notice under Section
142(1) of the Act on 29.10.2024 by respondent No.2 (i.e.
Jurisdictional Assessing Officer) instead of respondent No.1
(i.e. Faceless Assessing Officer), directing the petitioner to file
additional submissions. Accordingly, the petitioner responded
to the said notice vide letter dated 14.11.2024.
2.4 The respondent No.2, Jurisdictional Assessing Officer,
further granted the petitioner opportunity of personal hearing
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026
undefined
on 29.11.2024 at 10:30 a.m. However, the petitioner was
issued the intimation on 28.11.2024 intimating that the case
of the petitioner has been selected for the Faceless
Assessment and the case is assigned to the Assessment Unit.
2.5 The petitioner objected to the sudden change of two
officers, and accordingly, uploaded his submissions on the
portal and also stated about the short time given to him. On
02.12.2024, respondent No.1-Faceless Assessment Officer,
asked the petitioner to file submissions by 03.12.2024 by
issuing a show-cause notice. The petitioner was just given one
day time to file his submissions. Since the petitioner was
granted one day time to file his reply, and the notice was not
appearing on the portal, the petitioner filed a grievance vide
e-mail on the same day i.e. 02.12.2024.
2.6 The petitioner, accordingly, drafted the replies and
uploaded it with attachment exceeding 2200 pages on
03.12.2024. He was also provided personal hearing through
Video Conferencing on 04.12.2024. The petitioner also filed
further submission on the same day since respondent No.1
raised queries. The respondent No.1 did not pass any
Assessment Order till 06.12.2024, however, the impugned
order was passed on 10.12.2024 which is beyond the time
limit specified by this Court in the order dated 03.09.2024 of
12 weeks.
3 At the outset, learned advocate Mr.B.S.Soparkar, while
inviting the attention to the directions issued by this Court
vide judgement dated 03.09.2024 passed in Special Civil
Application No.16057 of 2024 initially filed by the present
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026
undefined
petitioner, submitted that the impugned order is beyond the
limitation period of 12 weeks and since no explanation was
sought from this Court, the impugned order is required to be
quashed and set aside.
3.1 It is contended that there was change in the Assessing
Officers during the assessment process as the initial show-
cause notice was issued by respondent No.1 under Section
143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act, which ultimately
resulted into an Assessment Order which was challenged by
the petitioner in the aforementioned writ petition, and was set
aside by this Court on a technical ground of violation of
principles of natural justice since the petitioner was not
afforded any opportunity of hearing.
3.2 It is submitted that during the on going proceedings,
respondent No.2 - the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, issued
notice to the petitioner and accordingly the petitioner also
submitted his replies. He was also heard on 29.11.2024.
Thereafter, suddenly respondent No.1 - Faceless Assessing
Officer took over the proceedings and only offered one day
time to submit the reply. Thus, it is submitted that the
impugned Assessment Order is required to be quashed and
set aside on this count.
4 Responding to the submissions, learned Senior Standing
Counsel Mr.Maulin Yajnik appearing for the revenue has
submitted that due to technical issues faced by the
respondents - Assessing Officers, the assessment was not
completed as directed by this Court within a period of 12
weeks. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the affidavit
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026
undefined
filed by the Assessing Officer. It is submitted that pursuant to
the order passed by this Court, the Office of the Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1, on 13.09.2024
forwarded the directions to the concerned Assessing Officer.
It is submitted that the relevant documents were uploaded to
the ITBA (Income Tax Business Application) and request for
transfer of the case to the Faceless Assessment Officer was
submitted by mail sent to range head on 25.09.2024 who in
turn forwarded the transfer request to Principal Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1 on 27.09.2024.
4.1 It is submitted that the Principal Chief Commissioner of
Income Tax, Rajkot-1, submitted the request to NeAC
(National e-Assessment Centre) via e-mail on 30.09.2024. It is
submitted that thereafter on 21.10.2024, the Jurisdictional
Assessing Officer, once again resubmitted the proposal to the
range head which reached the Office of the Principal Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1 on 22.10.2024.
However, the said proposal was not forwarded at that time
and the next follow-up occurred on 27.11.2024. It is submitted
that thereafter the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer initiated
the proceedings by issuing notice under Section 142(1) of the
Act on 29.10.2024 and the transfer was again requested and
resubmitted by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income
Tax, Rajkot-1 to NeAC on 27.11.2024 and ultimately the case
got transferred to the Faceless Assessment Officer on
28.11.2024, and thereafter, the Assessment Order has been
passed on 10.12.2024.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026
undefined
4.2 Thus, it is submitted that due to modifications in the
portal and the issues with regard to the transferring of the
case, the delay had occurred which ultimately resulted into
passing of the Assessment Order beyond the time limit
mentioned by this Court.
4.3 Thus, it is urged that the matter may be again remanded
to the authorities so that necessary orders can be passed.
5 We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties at length. The following facts have
established from the documents on record:
(1) After the filing of Return of Income by the petitioner on
30.10.2018, the Faceless Assessing Officer (respondent No.1),
passed an Assessment Order on 20.09.2024 under Section
143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act. The petitioner
challenged the same by filing the writ petition being Special
Civil Application No.16057 of 2021. By the order dated
03.09.2024, the writ petition was allowed by this Court and
the impugned Assessment Order was quashed and set aside
since the same was passed without following the principles of
natural justice by not providing personal hearing to the
petitioner. While setting aside the Assessment Order and
remanding the matter, this Court had categorically directed
the respondent - Assessing Officer to pass a fresh de novo
order after providing a fresh opportunity of hearing through
Video Conferencing to the petitioner in accordance with law
and such exercise was directed to be completed within a
period of 12 weeks.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026
undefined
(2) The respondents have admitted that they have not
passed fresh Assessment Order, as directed by this Court
within 12 weeks. It is also admitted that no application
seeking extension of time from this Court has been filed.
(3) This Court had categorically directed the respondent -
Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order de novo. It is pertinent
to note that the said respondent officer was respondent No.1,
the Faceless Assessing Officer, who had passed the order
dated 20.09.2021 which was quashed and set aside by this
Court and he was directed to pass a de novo order in 12
weeks. Interestingly, instead of respondent No.1, the Faceless
Assessing Officer who was required to issue notice or pass an
Assessment Order did not do so, but it was done by the
respondent No.2, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Thus,
the initial direction of this Court after remanding the matter
and directing the Assessing Officer i.e. the Faceless Assessing
Officer to pass the fresh order, the proceedings of assessment
were undertaken by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. This
is the first illegality which the respondents have committed.
(4) The respondent No.2 i.e. the Jurisdictional Assessing
Officer issued show-cause notice to the petitioner on
27.11.2024 and also granted personal hearing to the
petitioner on 29.11.2024. After this stage, suddenly,
respondent No.1 - Faceless Assessing Officer took over the
proceedings and he issued a show-cause notice on 02.12.2024
giving one day time to the petitioner to respond till
03.12.2024 to file the reply.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026
undefined
(5) The petitioner categorically filed a grievance on the
sudden change of the Assessing Officer from the officer who
had given him the opportunity of hearing. The petitioner
immediately uploaded the reply in the form of 2200 pages on
03.12.2024. He was, thereafter, provided an opportunity of
personal hearing on 04.12.2024 and ultimately the impugned
order was passed by the respondent No.1 i.e. the Faceless
Assessing Officer on 10.12.2024. Thus, the limitation of 12
weeks which was directed by this Court got over. From the
explanation tendered in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the
respondents, we have noticed that from 30.09.2024 to
21.10.2024, the respondents have waited for the response
from the NeAC and ultimately, the Jurisdictional Assessing
Officer resubmitted the proposal through the range head on
31.10.2024. Nothing is coming on record for the intervening
period and it appears that the directions issued by this Court
were totally ignored and hence the proceedings travelled
beyond the limit of 12 weeks.
5.1 Thus, the petitioner was only granted one day time to
respond to the notices. The hearing which was granted by the
respondent No.2, pursuant to the Show-cause Notice issued
by the respondent No.1 was a totally futile exercise and waste
of time and the respondents did not take enough precautions
to see that the directions issued by this Court are adhered to.
There was no need for respondent No.2 - Jurisdictional
Assessing Officer to intervene in the proceedings and take
over the proceedings which were initially undertaken by
respondent No.1 - Faceless Assessing Officer. On this count
also the impugned Assessment Order is required to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026
undefined
quashed and set aside. The one day time granted to the
petitioner to respond to the show-cause notice and file his
reply would in fact, be a violation of the principles of natural
justice in wake of the fact that respondent No.1 who was
supposed to issue the show-cause notice at first place did not
choose to do so till 02.12.2024 and prior to that from
29.10.2024 to 27.11.2024, the assessment proceedings were
undertaken by respondent No.2 - Jurisdictional Assessing
Officer against whom this Court had not issued direction.
6 The request made by the learned Senior Standing
Counsel Mr.Yajnik to remand the matter is not accepted in
wake of the fact that the directions issued by this Court
initially remanding the matter and to pass the Assessment
Orders after affording opportunity of hearing within a period
of 12 weeks are not adhered. Thus, looking to the manner in
which the entire proceedings have been undertaken after the
directions issued by this Court, we are not again inclined to
send the matter to the Assessing Officers. Accordingly, the
impugned order dated 10.12.2024 passed under Section
143(3) read with Section 260 and 144B of the Act is hereby
quashed and set aside. The writ petition succeeds
accordingly. Rule is made absolute with no orders as to costs.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
BIMAL /1
