Optival Health Solutions Private ... vs Union Of India
2025 Latest Caselaw 6641 Tel

Telangana High Court

Optival Health Solutions Private ... vs Union Of India on 21 November, 2025

Author: P.Sam Koshy

Bench: P.Sam Koshy

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

                                    AND

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

                WRIT PETITION No.39706 of 2022
                WRIT PETITION No.38716 of 2022
                WRIT PETITION No.39666 of 2022
                            AND
                WRIT PETITION No.1219 of 2023


COMMON ORDER:

(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr. S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s.

R.S. Associates for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.38716 of 2022;

appearing for Mr. V.Aneesh, learned counsel for the petitioner in

Writ Petition No.39666 of 2022, and also appearing for Mr. Dundu

Manmohan along Mr. Dundu Sashank, learned counsel for the

petitioner in Writ Petition No.39706 of 2022, Mr. Mandala Nagendra

Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1219 of

2023; and Mr. J.V. Prasad & Ms. K.Mamata, learned Senior Standing

Counsels for the Income Tax Department appearing on behalf of

the respondents / Revenue.

2. Since the issue involved in these batch of Writ Petitions is one

and same, they have been taken up and heard together and are

decided by this Common Order. However, we first intend to refer to

the facts in Writ Petition No.39706 of 2022.

3. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article

226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated

29.09.2022 passed by the respondent No.1 under Section 143(3)

read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly 'the

Act' hereinafter) for the assessment year 2020-21 vide Document

IdentificationNo.(DIN)ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2022-23/1046122105(1)

(for short the 'impugned order').

4. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner M/s. Raja

Pushpa Properties Pvt. Ltd. filed its return of income for the

Assessment Year 2020-21 on 10.12.2020 declaring a total taxable

income of Rs.31,87,26,740/- which was selected for scrutiny under

CASS and notices under Section 143(2) of the Act were issued and

further the respondent No.1 issued detailed notice under Section

142(1) of the Act to furnish all the details regarding the

unexplained income. During the assessment proceedings, the

Assessing Officer raised queries regarding 'other long term

liabilities' amounting to Rs.246 crores shown in the balance sheet

as on 31.03.2020. The petitioner clarified on multiple occasions

through detailed replies dated 15.03.2022, 22.08.2022 and

20.09.2022 stating that these liabilities pertains to advances

received from customers for purchase of land parcels ranging from

1 to 4 acres each, and explicitly stated that these were not

advances for flat or villa bookings as was being incorrectly

presumed by the Assessing Officer. The petitioner provided details

like permanent account numbers (PAN), complete address, direct

contact telephone numbers, written confirmation letters from the

advance-paying parties, details of the nature of property

transactions, extent of land agreed to be purchased, dates of

receipt of advances, and complete ledger accounts for 11 identified

parties involving aggregate advances of Rs.134 crores, specifically

and expressly requesting the Assessing Officer to contact the

parties directly on the telephone numbers provided if further

verification or clarification was needed, demonstrating full

transparency and willingness to cooperate.

5. Despite the detailed submissions and comprehensive

documentary evidence furnished, the respondent No.1 issued a

show cause notice dated 20.09.2022 under Section 144B(1)(xii) of

the Act proposing substantial additions on the fundamentally

erroneous and factually incorrect premise that the advances were

received from flat / villa purchasers who were companies. This

premise was wrong on two counts: firstly, the advances pertained

to land purchases and not flats / villas, and secondly, out of the 11

parties who had given advances, five were individuals and only six

were corporate entities, not all companies as assumed.

6. The petitioner promptly objected to this material

mischaracterization through a detailed letter dated 23.09.2022

once again reiterating with supporting documentary evidence that

the advances were exclusively for land transactions and not for any

residential units. The petitioner further provided confirmation

letters which clearly stated that Rs.22 crores out of the total

Rs.134 crores under scrutiny were opening balances which were

carried forward from previous assessment years and, therefore, did

not represent fresh receipts during the current previous year 2019-

20 under consideration. The petitioner particularly emphasized that

one significant transaction with EKGE Retail LLP amounting to

substantial sums was initially structured as a mortgage

arrangement with stipulated interest, and that interest amount of

Rs.27,00,000/- had been duly credited to the party's account and

claimed as business expenditure in the profit and loss account,

which was accepted by the Assessing Officer without any

disallowance. The petitioner argued that this acceptance of the

interest component made it logically and legally inconsistent for the

Assessing Officer to simultaneously doubt and reject the principal

advance component of the same transaction. Most significantly, the

entire assessment proceedings were completed within merely five

days of issuance of the show cause notice, clearly indicating a

rushed, mechanical, and perfunctory process without proper,

detailed, and judicious consideration of the petitioner's

comprehensive responses and voluminous supporting

documentation and the respondent No.1 accordingly passed the

impugned order. Additionally and surprisingly, the assessment

order included a separate disallowance of Rs.30,26,520/- under

Section 40A(3) of the Act relating to cash payments exceeding

prescribed limits which disallowance was never quantified,

specified, or even remotely mentioned or alluded to in the show

cause notice dated 20.09.2022 issued under Section 144B of the

Act, thereby completely violating the mandatory procedure

prescribed under Section 144B of the Act which requires all

proposed additions and disallowances to be specifically intimated to

the assessee before passing the final assessment order.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner primarily contended

that the impugned assessment order dated 29.09.2022 passed by

the respondent No.1 is fundamentally incorrect and materially

erroneous by treating the advances of Rs.134 crores received from

11 identified parties as advances for flat / villa bookings from

companies, when in reality these advances pertained exclusively to

purchase of land parcels ranging from 1 to 4 acres each, and out of

the 11 parties, five were individuals and only six were corporate

entities. Despite the petitioner's repeated clarification through

multiple detailed submissions dated 15.03.2022, 23.09.2022, and

other correspondences, and furnishing comprehensive documentary

evidence including complete details of the parties (PAN, addresses,

direct contact telephone numbers), written confirmation letters

from the advance-paying parties acknowledging the transactions,

details of the nature and extent of land agreed to be purchased,

dates of receipt of advances, and complete ledger accounts

demonstrating the transaction trail, the Assessing Officer

mechanically and arbitrarily rejected the explanation without any

valid basis, rational reasoning, or proper application of mind.

8. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that Rs.22 crores

out of the total Rs.134 crores under scrutiny were opening

balances carried forward from earlier assessment years and

therefore did not represent fresh receipts during the current

previous year 2019-20 under consideration, yet the Assessing

Officer erroneously treated even these opening balances as

unexplained cash credits chargeable to tax under Section 68 of the

Act in the current assessment year, which shows a complete lack of

understanding of basic accounting principles and temporal

applicability of tax provisions.

9. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that on 20.09.2022

at 06:00 P.M. the respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice

under Section 144B(1)(xii) of the Act stating that certain advances

disclosed under other long-term liabilities were significantly high

and exceeded the value of flats / villas. He further clarified that the

advances in question pertained to purchase of land only and not to

the value of flats / villas. Furthermore, out of 11 parties from

whom advances were received, 5 were individuals and not

companies, contrary to the assertion made in the show cause

notice. In response to the queries raised, the petitioner also

furnished complete details of the parties confirming payment of

advances. However, if the Assessing Officer had any doubt

regarding the genuineness of these transactions, notices under

Section 133(6) of the Act could have been issued to the concerned

parties whose complete details including PAN, addresses, and

contact numbers were already provided. Thus, mere mechanical

rejection without calling for any further particulars or conducting

any independent verification demonstrates non-application of mind

and also amounts to a violation of principles of natural justice.

10. Moreover, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that

petitioner's repeated request to the Assessing officer to contact the

11 parties directly on the telephone numbers provided to verify the

identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the transactions,

thereby demonstrates full transparency, complete willingness to

cooperate and yet the Assessing Officer made no attempt

whatsoever to contact even a single party or conduct any

independent enquiry, instead chose to mechanically and arbitrarily

reject the documentation furnished by the petitioner without any

rational basis or valid reason.

11. Furthermore, the learned Senior Counsel also contended that

the show cause notice dated 20.09.2022 was vague and did not

quantify the proposed additions or disallowances made under

Section 40A(3) of the Act. For instance, in the show cause notice it

was stated in general terms that 'significant amount of cash

payments were made in excess of Rs.10,000/-' but did not quantify

the specific amount proposed to be disallowed. It was only in the

Final Assessment Order that total disallowance of Rs.30,26,520/-

was mentioned for the first time. Thus, this approach is

fundamentally flawed and violates the principles of natural justice

as the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain or justify

the specific cash payments that were proposed to be disallowed.

12. Lastly, the learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the

delay in filing initial responses was on account of the COVID-19

pandemic period (15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 as per Supreme

Court's suo-moto order) when there was lack of adequate staff to

collate voluminous information, and moreover, the initial notice

itself was vague and did not specify exact requirements. However,

from the second notice onwards, the petitioner had been prompt in

filing detailed responses with supporting evidence, and the

Assessing Officer cannot now take advantage of his own wrong in

not following the due procedure prescribed under Section 144B of

the Act. Thus, praying this Court to set-aside the impugned order

passed by respondent No.1 and also allow the present writ petition.

13. Per contra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue

contended that the assessment proceedings were conducted in

accordance with the provisions of law and adequate opportunities

were provided to the petitioner throughout the assessment

process. It was submitted that the petitioner was issued notices

under Section 143(2) of the Act on 29.06.2021, followed by

detailed questionnaires on 21.02.2022, 09.03.2022, and

22.08.2022 calling for specific information and documents, and that

the Assessment Order was passed only after careful examination of

the material on record and the submissions made by the petitioner

from time to time.

14. Learned Senior Standing Counsel further contended that the

show cause notice dated 20.09.2022 clearly set out the proposed

additions and the reasons therefor, specifically highlighting that

certain advances disclosed in other long-term liabilities were

significantly high and exceeded the value of flats / villas that such

parties were not retail buyers but companies, and that significant

cash payments were made in excess of Rs.10,000/- in violation of

Section 40A(3) of the Act, and the petitioner was given sufficient

time and opportunity to respond to these specific concerns, to

which the petitioner did file a response dated 23.09.2022. However,

the learned Senior Standing Counsel argues that the petitioner

merely furnished a list of parties with their PAN numbers and

addresses, along with some confirmation letters, but failed to

provide credible evidence to establish the source of funds with the

parties, their capacity to advance such large amounts, and the

commercial rationale for making such huge advances for properties

which were either not in existence or were of much lower value.

Therefore, the Assessing Officer rightly treated these unverified

advances as unexplained credits under Section 68 of the Act and

made additions accordingly.

15. With regard to the disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the

Act, the Senior Standing Counsel contended that the disallowance

of Rs.30,26,520/- is justified as the petitioner made cash payments

exceeding Rs.10,000/- per day per party during AY 2020-21,

violating Section 40A(3) of the Act which mandates such payments

be made through banking channels to curb unaccounted money,

and while the show cause notice dated 20.09.2022 mentioned

these excess cash payments and called for explanation. However,

the petitioner failed to justify them or demonstrate any exception

under Rule 6DD, and therefore the Assessing Officer was justified

in disallowing the expenditure, and the petitioner cannot claim lack

of notice merely because the exact amount was quantified only in

the final Assessment Order. The learned Senior Standing Counsel

thus submits that there was no violation of principles of natural

justice and the petitioner cannot claim denial of opportunity of

being heard.

16. Learned Senior Standing Counsel contended that there was

substantial and unexplained delay on the part of the petitioner in

filing responses to the notices issued under Section 143(2) of the

Act. The initial notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued

on 14.07.2021, but the petitioner filed its first detailed response

only on 19.02.2022 i.e. after a delay of more than 7 months.

Learned Senior Standing Counsel submitted that such inordinate

delay hampered the assessment proceedings and indicates lack of

seriousness and cooperation on the part of the petitioner. That

despite the delay, the department accommodated the petitioner by

issuing further notices and questionnaires on 09.03.2022 and

22.08.2022, calling for specific details and clarifications.

17. Learned Senior Standing Counsel lastly contended that the

petitioner's excuse of COVID-19 pandemic and lack of adequate

staff is not acceptable, particularly when the petitioner is a

corporate entity engaged in real estate business with substantial

transactions and is expected to maintain proper records and

documentation. However, the Senior Standing Counsel submitted

that the petitioner cannot take advantage of its own wrong and

delay in complying with statutory notices and then claim that

adequate opportunity was not provided. It was also submitted that

the assessment proceedings had to be completed within the

statutory time limit prescribed under the Act, and the delay caused

by the petitioner left very little time for detailed back-and-forth

correspondence, which the petitioner is now trying to project as

denial of opportunity.

18. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on

perusal of records, what is culled out is the fact that in the present

writ petition the petitioner has challenged the assessment order

dated 29.09.2022, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, for the

assessment year 2020-21.

19. The grounds of challenge to the said assessment order are:-

1) That the assessment order has been passed without following

the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the Department

has not granted a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend

their case and also in producing relevant records before the

authorities before passing the assessment order.

2) That the entire initiation of proceedings under Section 143(3)

is in direct contravention to the manner and procedure

prescribed under Section 144B, a provision of law which

stood amended w.e.f. 01.04.2021 onwards, whereby the

entire assessment proceedings was mandatorily to be drawn

in a faceless manner. Whereas, in the instant case, the entire

proceedings have been drawn by the Jurisdictional Assessing

Officer.

20. In the instant case, for the assessment year 2020-21, return

of income was filed on 10.10.2020 declaring a taxable income of

Rs.31,87,26,740/-. The said return was selected for scrutiny and a

notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner.

Thereafter, a notice under Section 142(1) was issued on

21.02.2022 calling upon the petitioner to furnish details of the

documents in respect of the receipt of cash. The petitioner

submitted his detailed reply along with all relevant cogent

annexures available on 15.03.2022. Based upon the reply that was

furnished by the petitioner, the respondent No.1 accepted the

supporting evidence with regard to other long-term liabilities so far

as an amount of Rs.7 crores is concerned. However, as regards an

amount of Rs.134,11,84,938/- was doubted. Again the petitioner

was issued with a notice under Section 142(1) on 22.08.2022 from

the respondent No.1 calling upon the petitioner to furnish

additional details including advances received from customers such

as PAN, address of the parties, contact details, confirmation, etc.

The petitioner gave three responses; one on 10.09.2022,

14.09.2022, and 15.09.2022, and thereafter the authorities again

issued a show-cause notice on 20.09.2022 to which also the

petitioner gave his reply on 23.09.2022 and thereafter the

impugned assessment order has been passed on 29.09.2022.

21. Upon perusal of the responses submitted by the petitioner,

certain facts which are apparently evident is that the petitioner has

not been able to produce complete details including PAN, address

of the parties, etc. in spite of repeat notices being issued by the

Department and based upon which necessary verification could had

been conducted. Further, the petitioner also was not able to explain

credit worthiness of the advances so made particularly in respect of

an amount of Rs.134,11,84,938/-.

22. Apart from the aforesaid facts, the admission on the part of

the petitioner himself of having received repeated show-cause

notices by the Department from time to time, goes to establish that

the contention of the petitioner being denied fair opportunity of

defence would not be sustainable as the Department in fact had

given ample opportunity to the petitioner to appear and defend its

case by leading cogent and substantial materials to substantiate

the contents of the show-cause notice. Thus, this Bench is of the

firm view that the contention of the petitioner of the impugned

assessment order being in violation of the principles of natural

justice is not sustainable and the same stands decided in favour of

the Revenue and against the petitioner.

23. Now comes the second question of the assessment order

being in violation of the provisions of Section 144B of the Act.

24. The provisions of the Income Tax Act stood amended w.e.f.

01.04.2021 by virtue of the Finance Act, 2021. With the insertion

of Section 144B, all the assessments, reassessments and

recomputations which are proposed to be carried out under Section

144(3) has to be done in a faceless manner. The issue of faceless

assessment becoming mandatory for proceedings drawn after

01.04.2021 already stands adjudicated upon in a series of

litigations before this High Court in the case of Kankanala

Ravindra Reddy and Others vs. The Income Tax Officer and

Others (batch of writ petitions, lead case being W.P.No.25903 of

2022 decided on 14.09.2023). In the said judgment, the Division

Bench of this High Court held at paragraph Nos.27 to 36 as under:

"27. In the present case, both the proceedings i.e., the impugned proceedings under Section 148A of the Act, as well as the consequential notices under Section 148 of the Act were issued by the local jurisdictional officer and not in the prescribed faceless manner. The order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notices under Section 148 of the Act are issued on 29.04.2022, i.e., after the "Faceless Jurisdiction of the Income Tax Authorities Scheme, 2022"

and the "e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022" were introduced.

28. From the afore given factual matrix, firstly the statutory provisions enumerated in the preceding paragraphs and secondly, the subsequent direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, what is clearly reflected is the fact that when the Hon'ble Supreme Court had partly allowed the petitions which were filed by the Union of India challenging the judgements of various High Courts whereby the notice under Section 148 of the unamended Act were set aside by the High Courts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has only permitted the Union of India to proceed further with the reassessment proceedings under the amended provision of law, more particularly, as amended by the Finance Act, 2021. It never intended the authorities concerned to continue with the proceedings from the stage of the issuance of notices under Section 148, nor is the directions to that effect. And there cannot be any confusion, ambiguity or mis-conception for the respondent- Department to have in this regard.

29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in paragraph No.7 specifically held that the High Courts have rightly held that the benefit of new provisions shall be made available in respect of the proceedings relating to past assessment years. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court again in paragraph No.8 very emphatically had said that the proceedings ought not to have been issued under the unamended Act. Rather ought to had been issued under the substituted provisions as per the Finance Act, 2021. Further, in the same paragraph clearly directed the Income Tax Department to proceed further as per the Finance Act, 2021, subject to compliance of all the procedural requirements and defences available to the assessee under the substituted provisions under the Finance Act, 2021. The fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the notice earlier issued under Section 148 be treated as notice one under Section 148A and further it was also be treated as the show cause notice issued under Section 148A(b) by itself establishes the fact the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the respondent-Department was to proceed further in accordance with the substituted provisions which stood introduced by the Finance Act, 2021.

30. In the instant case, undisputedly the respondent- Department has not proceeded against the petitioner under the substituted provisions of the Finance Act, 2021. Rather, it proceeded with the unamended provisions of law. This in other words takes the position back to the stage as it stood when the initial notices under Section 148 under the unamended provisions of law were issued. This in other

words also takes us to a position or a stage prior to the large number of writ petitions being allowed across the country, approximately 9,000 in number and confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also vide the judgement of Ashish Agarwal, supra.

31. It is well settled principle of law that where the power is given to do certain things in certain way, the thing has to be done in that way alone and no any other manner which is otherwise not provided under the law.

32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Kishore Jha Vs. Mahaveer and others 1in paragraph No.17 laying down the aforesaid principle held as under "it is well settled solitary principle that if statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. The said principle of law was further reiterated in the case of Cherrukurimani Vs. Chief Secretary Government of Andhra Pradesh and others 2, wherein, again in paragraph No.14, the aforesaid principle has been reinforced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that "where law prescribe a thing to be done in a particular manner following a particular procedure, it shall have to be done in the same manner following the provisions of law without deviating from the prescribed procedure. The said principle has again recently been reiterated and followed in the case of Municipal Corporation Greater Mumbai Vs.

1999 8 SCC 266

2015 13 SCC 722

Abhilash Lal and others 3, and in the case of Opto Circuit India Limited Vs. Axis Bank and others 4 and again in the case of Union of India Vs. Mahesh Sing 5. In the case of Tata Chemicals Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs (preventive) Jam Nager 6, wherein it has been held that there can be no stopple against the law. If the law requires something to be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner, if it is not done in that manner then it would have no existence in the eye of law. In paragraph 18 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"The Tribunal's judgment has proceeded on the basis that even though the samples were drawn contrary to law, the appellants would be estopped because their representative was present when the samples were drawn and they did not object immediately. This is a completely perverse finding both on fact and law. On fact, it has been more than amply proved that no representative of the appellant was, in fact, present at the time the Customs Inspector took the samples. Shri K.M. Jani who was allegedly present not only stated that he did not represent the Clearing Agent of the appellants in that he was not their employee but also stated that he was not present when the samples were taken. In fact, therefore, there was no representative of the appellants when

2020 13 SCC 234

2021 6 SCC 707

2015 11 SCC 628

the samples were taken. In law equally the Tribunal ought to have realized that there can be no estoppel against law. If the law requires that something be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner, and if not done in that manner has no existence in the eye of law at all. The Customs Authorities are not absolved from following the law depending upon the acts of a particular assessee. Something that is illegal cannot convert itself into something legal by the act of a third person."

33. If we look into the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as enumerated in the preceding paragraphs and when we look into the facts of the present case, it would clearly reflect that the Parliament had by virtue of the Finance Act 2021, brought certain amendments to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, more particularly, in respect of the manner in which the reassessment and the procedure to be adopted by the Income Tax Department. The amendment was brought with an intention to make the law more transparent and effective. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also while deciding the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as is discussed with in the preceding paragraph had specifically directed the Union of India to proceed further in terms of the substituted provisions brought in by way of Finance Act 2021.

34. What is also relevant to take note of the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India has also not relaxed

the applicability of the Finance Act 2021. Rather, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in very clear and unambiguous terms had held that the notices issued under the un-amended provisions, which were struck down by the High Court, shall be treated as a notice under new amended provisions and the Union of India was directed to proceed further from that stage in terms of the amended provisions of law. In spite of such specific clear directions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Union of India for reasons best known again proceeded with the procedure as it stood prior to the amended provisions which came into force from 01.04.2021.

35. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is by now very clear that the procedure to be followed by the respondent- Department upon treating the notices issued for reassessment being under Section 148A, the subsequent proceedings was mandatorily required to be undertaken under the substituted provisions as laid down under the Finance Act, 2021. In the absence of which, we are constrained to hold that the procedure adopted by the respondent-Department is in contravention to the statute i.e. the Finance Act, 2021, at the first instance. Secondly, it is also in direct contravention to the directives issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra.

36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned notices issued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent- Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable. The notices so issued and the procedure adopted being per se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly set aside/quashed. As a

consequence, all the impugned orders getting quashed, the consequential orders passed by the respondent-Department pursuant to the notices issued under Section 147 and 148 would also get quashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason we are quashing the consequential order is on the principles that when the initiation of the proceedings itself was procedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also gets nullified automatically."

25. In the instant case also, the Department has not been able to

show one good reason as to why the amended provisions as per

the Finance Act, 2021 insofar the proceedings to be initiated in a

faceless manner could not be done. In the counter also the

Department has been silent so far as the faceless assessment part

is concerned. The judgment in the case of Kankanala Ravindra

Reddy and Others (supra) also squarely applies to the facts of

this case and the impugned assessment order deserves to be and is

accordingly set aside / quashed. The second ground thus stands

decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The

impugned order therefore is not sustainable and the same deserves

to be and accordingly set aside / quashed and the consequential

orders also would thereby be not sustainable and the same also are

set aside / quashed. The Writ Petition No.39706 of 2022

accordingly stands allowed.

26. Coming to Writ Petition No.1219 of 2023, here also the

factual details narrated by the petitioner in the writ petition seems

to be two fold as in the earlier case i.e. Writ Petition No.38706 of

2022. Here also the impugned order has been assailed on two

grounds; one is the ground of violation of the principles of natural

justice and the other is the impugned order being violative and in

contravention to the provisions and procedure prescribed under

Section 144B of the Act.

27. In the impugned order in paragraph No.2 the details of the

opportunity and hearing being given to the petitioner is being

reflected in tabular form. Surprisingly, the 4th column of the table

would show that the petitioner has not effectively responded to

each of the notices issued. Then comes the question as to whether

the notices were in fact served upon the petitioner or not. A plain

reading of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in paragraph Nos.2 to

6 gives a clear indication of the petitioner admitting the fact of

receiving the notices which were issued time and again, and which

the petitioner on receipt of the same, have also confided with his

auditors and other consultants. In view of the same, as has been

held in Writ Petition No.38706 of 2022, the question of violation of

principal of natural justice in this case also stands decided against

the petitioner and in favour of the Revenue.

28. As regards the second question of the impugned order being

in violation of the provisions of Section 144B of the Act, there is no

dispute of the fact that the impugned order of assessment having

been passed by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the

concerned unit in the Income Tax Department and whether the

order issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is in violation of

Section 144B or not has been extensively dealt with while deciding

the second issue in Writ Petition No.38706 of 2022. In view of the

same, applying the same principles, the second issue raised by the

petitioner in this case also stands decided in favour of the

petitioner and against the Revenue. The proceedings ought to had

been initiated in a faceless manner as is envisaged under Section

144B of the Act in respect of the proceedings initiated after

01.04.2021. The impugned order therefore is not sustainable and

the same deserves to be and accordingly set aside / quashed and

the consequential orders also would thereby be not sustainable and

the same also are set aside / quashed. Accordingly, Writ Petition

No.1219 of 2023 also stands allowed.

29. Coming to Writ Petition No.38716 of 2022, the grounds raised

by the petitioner in this case are also similar to the facts and

circumstances in Writ Petition No.39706 of 2022. Here also the

impugned order has been assailed on the same grounds of it being

in violation of the principles of natural justice and being in violation

of the provisions and procedure prescribed under Section 144B of

the Act. Since these two issues have already been dealt with

extensively and decided in Writ Petition No.39706 of 2022 i.e. one

in favour of the Revenue and the other in favour of the petitioner,

on similar lines Writ Petition No.38716 of 2022 also stands allowed.

30. Lastly, in Writ Petition No.39666 of 2022 also the grounds

raised by the petitioner are also similar to the facts and

circumstances narrated in Writ Petition No.39706 of 2022. Again in

this case also, the petitioner assailed the impugned order being in

violation of the principles of natural justice and it being in violation

of the provisions and procedure prescribed under Section 144B of

the Act and of these two issues one was decided in favour of the

Revenue and other in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, on similar

lines, this writ petition also stands allowed.

31. In the result, the four writ petitions stands allowed.

32. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

_____________ P.SAM KOSHY, J

_________________________ NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J

Date: 21.11.2025 GSD