Basant Kumar Sahu vs. Central Board Of Direct Taxes

PDF · subscribers
WP/81/2026HC Madhya Pradesh30 January 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA3 pages
For Petitioner: Sapan Usrethe[P-1]For Respondent: Additional Solicitor General[R-1]
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the assessment order was liable to be set aside. While acknowledging the revenue's submission that the reply was received after the prescribed time, the Court emphasized that the reply was on record before the final order was passed. Therefore, it ought to have been considered by the Assessment Authority and should not have been discarded mechanically. Furthermore, the Court noted that a previous order dated 12.12.2024 by the Appellate Authority had remanded the matter for a fresh denovo assessment. This implied that the earlier reply filed by the petitioner on 07.03.2023 was liable to be considered. The Court found that the petitioner was unnecessarily harassed. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the matter was remitted back to be decided afresh by the Assessment Officer, and the respondents were directed to pay costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Basant Kumar Sahu, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an assessment order dated 04.12.2025 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre. The assessment year in question is 2018-19. The petitioner contended that a reply submitted in response to a show cause notice dated 20.11.2025 was not considered. The respondents, through an affidavit, clarified that the reply was received on 27.11.2025, which was beyond the specified time limit of 11:00 Hrs. on 27.11.2025, and therefore, could not be separately considered. However, they stated that all other replies and documents submitted during the assessment proceedings were considered. The High Court noted that a previous order dated 12.12.2024 by an Appellate Authority had remanded the matter for a fresh denovo assessment, implying earlier filed replies should be considered.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre for Assessment Year 2018-19 is liable to be set aside on the ground that the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice dated 20.11.2025 was not considered, turning on Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that their reply to the show cause notice was not considered, leading to an invalid assessment order. Revenue's Contention: The respondents submitted that while the reply was received, it was after the stipulated time limit mentioned in the show cause notice, and thus could not be separately considered. They asserted that all other submissions were duly examined and considered, and the allegation of non-consideration was factually incorrect. They relied on the ITBA portal's case history. The revenue also stated that the assessment order was passed under Section 147 read with Section 250 and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after providing due opportunities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 250,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL ON THE 30th OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 81 of 2026 BASANT KUMAR SAHU Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Sapan Usrethe - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Harpreet Singh Gupta - Advocate for the respondents. ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Rusia The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 04.12.2025 passed in ITBA/AST/S/147/2025-26/1083288206(1) by the respondent No.3-National E- Faceless Assessment Centre. 2. Vide order dated 14.01.2026, the learned counsel for the respondents was directed to obtain instructions and submit an affidavit within 15 days to clarify whether the reply was filed by the petitioner or not, if filed, why the same was not considered. The respondent filed the reply, the operative paragraphs of which are reproduced below :- "Comment on Para No.6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6 :- It is respectfully submitted that the Assessing 1 WP-81-2026 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8808 Signed by: SHIVANI TIWARI Signing time: 2/3/2026 11:18:59 AM Signature Not Verified

Officer passed the assessment order for AY 2018-19 on 04.12.2025 u/s 147 r.w.s. 250 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after providing due, adequate and sufficient opportunities to the assessee. The assessee has alleged that the reply submitted in response to the show cause notice dtd. 20/11/2025 was not considered. In this regard, it is clarified that a valid show cause notice was duly issued, clearly specifying the time limit for compliance (which was 27.11.2025 upto 11:00 Hrs.). As per case history reflecting from departmental ITBA portal, though, the assessee responded against the show-cause notice. but the reply of the assessee was received in this office on last date 27.11.2025, but, beyond the time mentioned in the show-cause notice, due to which, the same could not be separately considered. However, it is further clarified that all other replies, explanations and documents submitted by the assessee during the course of the assessment proceedings were duly examined and considered before passing the assessment order dtd. 04.12.2025. The assessment has been completed after taking into account all material placed on record within the prescribed time during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the allegation of the assessee that his reply was not considered is factually incorrect, misleading, and devoid of merit." 3. It is clear from the aforesaid reply that the petitioner had already submitted a response to the show cause on 27.11.2025, but after the prescribed date and time given in the show cause notice. Fact remain that the reply was received / on record before passing the final order. Therefore, it 2 WP-81-2026 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8808 Signed by: SHIVANI TIWARI Signing time: 2/3/2026 11:18:59 AM Signature Not Verified

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE (PRADEEP MITTAL) JUDGE ought to have been considered by the Assessment Authority. The reply should not have been discarded mechanically. 4. Even otherwise, in view of the aforesaid order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority, this petitioner/assessee was not required to file a fresh reply because the matter was remanded back for fresh denovo assessment, which means that the earlier reply filed by the petitioner, which was already on record filed on 07.03.2023, was liable to be considered. Therefore, unnecessarily, the petitioner/assessee has been harassed to approach either before the Appellate Authority or before the High Court again and again. The Assessment Officer is directed to pay the cost of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner. 5. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed with the cost of Rs.25000/- ( Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) to be paid by the respondents. Matter is remitted back to be decided afresh by the Assessment Officer. Shivani

3 WP-81-2026 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8808 Signed by: SHIVANI TIWARI Signing time: 2/3/2026 11:18:59 AM Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →