ServiceNow Software Development India Private Limited Vs Assessment Unit

Service Now Software Development lndia Private Limited, 1s!2nd fforors, Unit No. 02 and 10th - 16th floors, Unit No. 01 and 02 (Argus Block), Knowledge City, Survey No. 83/1 , lnorbit Mall Road, Raidurg Panmaktha Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad- 500081, Telangana.

¶10

Rep by its employee Sandeep Nalluri S/o. Kishore Babu Nalluri, Aged about 36 years, Occ: Payroll Senior Manager, Rl/o. Villa No. 10/A, Sitarama Homes, Bachupally, Nizampet Road, Hyderabad^- 500090, Telangana, lndia

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

I Assessment Unit, lT Department, National E-Assessment Center, Room No. 401 ,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi -1 10003.

¶14

2 Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 3(1) Signature Towers, Sy. No. 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy.37(P) of Kothaguda, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Serlingampally (M), R. R. District, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500084

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Direction or Order, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records and quashing a.lmpugned Order dated 20.03.2025 vide ITBA/AST/F/'144C12O24- 2511074764315(1) issued by the Respondent No. 1 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 and 19(1Xg) of the constitution of lndia b.and pass

¶17

lA NO:^'l OF 2025

¶18

Petition under Section 15i CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the petition, th" Hish c";;;;;,*.:"i," dispense with firing of certified copy of *r" rrprgnuo order issued by the Respondent No' 1 to the petitioner vide DrN No. Ft144C/2024''BA/AST/ 251 1 07 47 6 431 S( 1 ) dated 20.03.2025 for assessmen t year 2022-23.

¶19

IANO:2O F 2025

¶20

petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the Impugned order dated 20.03.2025 issued by Respondent No. 1 vide ITBA/ASTiF/144C/2024-25/1O24764315(1) during the pendency of this Writ Petition in the interest of justice.

¶21

Counset for the petitioners: SRt pERCy pARDIWALA, REpRESEhtTING.. "'" SRI BASIREDDY NARENDAR Ni-OO

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: lU^S. BOKARAO SAPNA REDDY, sc FOR THE TNCOME rax oEpenrrvrerur

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

-.-----------

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

¶26

AND

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.1O685 OF 2o25

¶29

ORDER (per Han'ble Sn Justice P.Sam Koshgl

¶30

Heard Mr.Percy Pa_rdiwala, learned Senior Counsel representaing Mr.Basireddy Narendar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department. Perused the record.

¶31

The challenge in the present writ petition is to the draft assessment order passed under Section 144 C (1) of the Income Tax Act 196 I (for short 'the Act) dated 20.O3.2025.

¶32

One of the foremost challenge to the impugned order was that having issued a show cause notice dated 04.03.2025. Tine petitioners were required to be given seven days time to respond to the show cause notice. However, they were just granted less than four days time. During which time, the petitioners did give two responses i.e., on 07.03.2025 and the other response was filed on 12.03.2025 and the authorities have proceeded further ignoring the response that was subsequently {iled on l2-O3.2O25 and have passed the order under Section 144 C (l) of the Act, leading to the filing of the present writ petition.

¶33

F-: .

¶34

Page 2 of 3

¶35

On the question as to whether is it not required^{to give seven} days notice to the assessee while show^{cause notice issuedin term of} the SOP O3.O8.2O22. The learned Standing^{Counselcontendedthat} from the same SOP also says that in a^{given case seven days} requirement can be curtailed.^{Nonetheless,ir is admitted that in the} instani case seven days time^{was not granted to the petitionersherein.} 5. The show cause notice in the instant^{case was one which was} dated 04.03.2025 and therefore^{we do not find any justiliablereasons} available for the respondent department^{for not grantingthe seven} days response time alter the show^{causenotice was issued as is} t siipulated in the SOP^{issued by the CBDT on 03.O8.2022.}

¶36

It is also not a^{case made out by the respondentsthat in the} given circumstances there was this^{period of limitation which was} coming in their way so as to curtail^{the seven days period which is} otherwise required as^a matter^{of fact.}

¶37

7 . In view of the said fact for^{this reason itself, we are inclinedto} entertain the writ petition and^{set aside the draft assessment order} I passed under Section 144 C⁽¹⁾ of the^{Act and are further inclined to} remit the matter back to the^{concernedauthoritiesto proceedand} decide the matter afresh from^{the stage. of the issuance of show cause} i.e., the proceedings as it stood^{on 04.O3.2025.}

ffi

Pate 3 of 3

\

\

Since we are inclined to remit^{the matter backto the concerned} authorities, let the^{petitioner file a detailed response withina period of} seven days from^{the date of receipt of copy of this order and} subsequently the^{respondent authorities may proceedin accordance} with law and^pass appropriate^{order based upon the defence that the} petitioners would be taking^{in the response to the show cause notice.} g. It is made it ciear that^{sincewe a-re granting sevendays time} from the date of receipt^{of copy of this order, there will be no} requirement of^{issuance of fresh notice for response to be filed by the} petitioners to the sho'ut,^{cause notice dated 04.03.2025.ll shall also be} the responsibility ol the^{petitioner to uploadthe orderpassedby this} Bench in the present writ^{petition so far as setting aside of the draft} order dated 20.O3.2025^{passedunder Section 144 C (1) of the Act'}

¶43

Accordingly, this^{writ petitionstands disposedof' Thereshall be} no order as to costs.

¶44

As a sequel, miscellaneous^{applicationspending ifany, shall}

¶45

stand closed.

¶46

SD/- A. JAYASREE ISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1 . Assessment Unit, IT Department, National E- ment Center, Room No. 4O1,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal^{Nehru Stadi um,New Delhi-1 10003}

¶51

AssistantCommissioner of^{lncome Tax, Circle3(1) Signature Towers, Sy.No.} 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy.37(P) of Kothaguda,^Opp . Botanical Gardens, Serlingampally (M ),^{R. R. District,Hyderabad, Telangana,500084}

¶52

J One CC to Sri Ba sireddy Narendar Reddy. Advocate toPUCl 4 One CC to Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy,^{SC for lncome} Tax Department[OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies

TJ KV Pmc,

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1610412025

ORDER