logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2025 TSHC 1335 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court for the State of Telangana
Case No : Writ Petition No. 35178 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN
Parties : Spandana Rural and Urban Development Organisation Versus Assessment Unit
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Akruti Agarwal, Advocate. For the Respondent: Vijhay K. Punna Senior Sc for Itd.
Date of Judgment : 26-11-2025
Head Note :-
Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 143(3) read with Section 144B -
Summary :-
Mistral API responded but no summary was generated.
Judgment :-

1. Heard Mr. S.Annamalai, learned counsel representing Ms. Akruti Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Vijhay K.Punna, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and Mr. B.Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Mr. N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.3.

2. Petitioner- Organization has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short ‘CIT(A)’) on 10.04.2025, against the assessment order dated 20.03.2025, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), for the assessment year 2023-24. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition on 18.11.2025 against the same assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act for the assessment year 2023-24. Petitioner also sought for quashing of the computation sheet dated 20.03.2025 issued by respondent No.1 under Section 143(3) of the Act and demand notice dated 20.03.2025, issued by respondent No.1 under Section 156 of the Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that proper notice was not issued to the petitioner/assessee before undertaking the assessment proceedings, which is in contravention of the SOP issued for Faceless Assessments under Section 144B of the Act. Therefore, the impugned assessment is hit by non-compliance of principles of natural justice.

4. Learned counsel further submits that during pendency of the appeal, this Court had been pleased to quash the assessment proceedings in a batch of Writ Petitions led by W.P.No.23491 of 2025 and other cases, by order dated 16.10.2025. A mere perusal of the said order shows that the proceedings in those batch of cases have been quashed only on the ground that the assessment proceedings were initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer.

5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department has furnished chronology of dates and events of the assessment proceedings, which are extracted hereunder:

                         

                         

6. Learned Senior Standing Counsel submits that the plea of not giving enough opportunity to respond to the notice is untenable as the chronology of dates would show. The petitioner duly filed his written submissions in response to the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act and requested for further adjournment, which was also granted. He also filed written submissions in continuation of the submissions made earlier. Further written submissions,  in  continuation  of  submissions dated 06.01.2025 and 07.01.2025, were submitted on 09.02.2025. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued on 19.02.2025 and hearing was scheduled on 25.02.2025, on which date the petitioner/assessee requested for video conferencing on 04.03.2025. On 27.02.2025, the petitioner/assessee requested for rescheduling. The matter was again adjourned on 28.02.2025. On 04.03.2025, the petitioner/assessee furnished detailed reply which was considered by the Assessing Officer. The assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act on 20.03.2025.  Therefore, the plea of denial of opportunity to the petitioner/assessee to participate in the assessment proceedings in response to the show cause notice is untenable on facts. The petitioner has preferred appeal immediately after passing of the assessment order. The petitioner is at liberty to take all grounds on merits before the appellate authority. Therefore, the instant Writ Petition may be dismissed.

7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the facts noted above. We also indicate  here  that  though  the  appeal  was  filed on 10.04.2025 and the petitioner approached this Court against refusal of stay by the CIT(Exemptions) in two writ petitions i.e., W.P.Nos.28734 of 2025 and 33131 of 2025, the instant Writ Petition has been preferred in the third week of November on 18.11.2025, which we are not inclined  to  entertain  as  the  petitioner  has  alreadyapproached the appellate authority. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned assessment order, computation sheet and demand notice dated 20.03.2025, issued by respondent No.1, more so, since the petitioner is pursuing its appellate remedy. Let the CIT(A) decide the appeal in a reasonable time.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal