Ankit Gupta S/O Sh. Rambabu Gupta Vs National Faceless… — Income Tax | Rajasthan HC (2025)

Ankit Gupta S/O Sh. Rambabu Gupta Vs National Faceless… — Income Tax | Rajasthan HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed: impugned Single Judge order relegating appellant to appeal set aside; assessment order dated 30.09.2021 for AY 2018-19 set aside; matter remitted back to the respondent (National Faceless Assessment Centre) to finalize the assessment in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the assessment order dated 30.09.2021 for assessment year 2018-19 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice by denying the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing/response to the assessment notices. +1 more

Court's answer

The appellant was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend the case - the notice dated 22.02.2021 required show-cause the same day, and the notice dated 28.09.2021, served late in the night, allowed less than twenty-four hours for filing a response.

Ratio / Principle

As laid down in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai (1998) 8 SCC 1 and Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. (AIR 2023 SC 781) and adopted by this Court, in case of violation of principles of natural justice the extraordinary writ jurisdiction is to be exercised.

Key takeaways

The assessment order passed is in violation of principles of natural justice.ratio¶¶26
The impugned order of the learned Single Judge relegating the appellant to remedy of appeal is set aside.ratio¶¶26
The assessment order dated 30.09.2021 for assessment year 2018-19 is set aside.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.930/2021, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench (decided 18/09/2025; Avneesh Jhingan and Baljinder Singh Sandhu, JJ.) - Ankit Gupta v. National Faceless Assessment Centre. The Division Bench held that the assessment order dated 30.09.2021 for assessment year 2018-19 was passed in violation of principles of natural justice: notices under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 03.01.2021 and 08.02.2021 had been responded to, but the notice dated 22.02.2021 required show-cause the same day, and the notice dated 28.09.2021, served late in the night, allowed less than twenty-four hours for filing a response, denying the appellant reasonable opportunity to defend the case. Relying on Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai (1998) 8 SCC 1 and Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. (AIR 2023 SC 781), the Court held that on violation of natural justice the extraordinary writ jurisdiction is to be exercised; accordingly the learned Single Judge's dismissal relegating the appellant to the remedy of appeal was set aside, the assessment order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the respondent to finalize the assessment in accordance with law.

[2025:RJ-JP:38152-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.930/2021 IN

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11822/2021

Ankit Gupta S/o Sh. Rambabu Gupta, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of C-87, Sethi Colony, Jaipur 302004, Rajasthan.

----Appellant

Versus

National Faceless Assessment Centre, (Erstwhile Known As National E-Assessment Centre) Through Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Room No. 401, 2nd Floor, E- Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi- 110003.

----Respondent

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Saksham Pandey for Mr. SanjayJhanwar,Senior Advocate
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Siddharth Bapna with
	Mr. Rahul Kumar &
	Mr. Meyhul Mittal

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order

18/09/2025

This intra-court appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.10.2021 passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No.11822/2021.

The brief facts are that the appellant challenged the assessment order dated 30.09.2021 for assessment year 2018-19 by filing a writ petition. The grievance raised was that without granting an opportunity of hearing, the impugned order was passed. The writ petition was dismissed relegating the petitioner to remedy of appeal.

[2025:RJ-JP:38152-DB]

[SAW-930/2021]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the assessment order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The argument is that notices under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued on 03.01.2021 and 08.02.2021 were responded to. Another notice was issued on 22.02.2021 requiring further details for assessment. The appellant was asked to file response to the notice on the same day i.e. 22.02.2021.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that appellant was granted opportunity by issuing two notices which were responded and notices dated 22.02.2021 and 28.09.2021 were issued.

The notice dated 22.02.2021 directed the appellant to show cause on the same day. The notice dated 28.09.2021 was served upon appellant late in the night directing to file reply before mid night of 29.09.2021 thereby giving less than twenty four hours for filing a response.

The assessment proceedings were initiated in December, 2021, the Department continued proceedings for eight months and while granting opportunity to the appellant the time is restricted to hours. The appellant was denied reasonable opportunity to defend the case.

The Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai And Ors. (1998) 8 SCC 1 and Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and Ors. AIR 2023 SC 781 held that in case of violation of principles of natural justice, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction is to be exercised.

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:38152-DB]

[SAW-930/2021]

The assessment order passed is in violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge relegating the appellant to remedy of appeal is set aside. The assessment order dated 30.09.2021 for assessment year 2018-19 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent to finalize the assessment in accordance with law.

It is taken note that during the pendency of the appeal an interim order was passed on 09.11.2011 which operated till today. 10. The writ petition is allowed.

(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

DANISH USMANI /42