Corteva Crop India Private Limited vs. The Union of India

134471 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SpecialOriginalJurisdiction) t. MONDAY. THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETI TION NO: 1 3227 oF 2026 Between: AND corteva crop lndia Private Limited, Represented by its (Tax Analyst)'.Mr pr*r" S"to" S/o (Dwarka Plsad Sarda), aged about 29 years.Having office ,iiitn Floor, Atria AtocK V-Rscendas,'Plot no 17 Software Units Lavout' Madhapur 8.0 Shaikpet, Hyderabad 500081' Telangana ...PETITIONER The Union of lndia, Through its Revenue secrelary, Department of Revenue' ff,tini.tw of Finance, 128-AlNorth Block, New Delhi Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department National Faceless Assessment Centre 2nd Floor, Jawahartai Ueniu Stadium New Delhi-110 003 Email id samadhan.faceless.appeal@incometax gov' in' Deoutv commissioner of lncome-tax, circle 1(1), lT Tower Hyderabad' i"r"r.,i"* soooza-ir"ir id Hyderabad deit l l@incometax gov in 1 2 3 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith'theHighCourtmaybepleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ, orde(s), directions, quashing, Setting aside the impugned order dated 28 03 2026 under section 143(3) read with section 1448, notice of demand dated 28 03 2026 issued under section '1 56 and notice dated28.03'2026issuedundersection2TOAofthelncome_taxAct,l96linthecase of the Petitioner for assessme nl year 2024-25 ' enclosed as Exhibit-l ' Exhibit-2 and Exhibit-3 respectively, as being without jurisdiction' passed in contradiction to the

principlesofnaturaljusticeandprocedureestablishedbylawzndtoissueOrde(s)' Directions,Writ(S)oranyotherreliefsasthisHon'bleCourtdeemsfitandproperin the facts and circumstance of the case in the interest of justice' t.A. NO: 20F 2026 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circurrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay on the operation of the impugned assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section l44B of the lncome-tax Act, 1961 ("the Acl") and consequential notice of demand dated 28.03.2026 issued under section 156 and notice dated 28.03.2026 issued under section 2704 of the lncome-tax Act, 1 16'1 in the case of the Petitioner for assessmen I year 2024-25, enclosed as Exhibit-1 Exhibit-2 and Exhibit 3 respectively. Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms.KAVITHA JHA, Sr'counsel . reP., SRI ZUBIN J F POOVATHINKAL counser for the Respondent No.1 ' 3Xrti"..T,ljtl3ljt?i"0,. counsel for the Respondents No.2&3 : Ms.B.SAPNA REDD'/, Sr.SC for lT DEPT The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HTGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA W.P.N 0.13227 0F 2026 21.01.2026 Between Corteva Crop India Private Limited Petitioner AND The Union of India Through its Revenue SecretarY, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, l28A,Aiorth Block New Delhi & 2 others 'Respondents QBDEB, (per [!on ble Sri.Jusrice P.San kt:h1) Heard Ms. Kavitha Jha, leamed Senior Counsel representing Mr.ZubinJFPoovathinkal,learnedcounselforthepetitioner, Mr. N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General ol India' appearing for respondent No. 1 and Ms B Sapna Reddy' learned Senior Standing counsel for the Income Tax Department appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 3. Perused the record'

2 2. The instant writ petition has been filed assziling the order, dated 28.03.2026, passed by the respondent No.2. 3 ' The impugned assessment order has been qu:stioned belbre this Court primarily on two grounds. Firstly, the shc,w cause notice having been issued on 26.02.2026, the requirement of the SOp goveming the field is to grant seven (07) working davs time to the assessee to respond. In thc instant case, the seven (07) working dar s time was not granted. Hence, the impugned order. was in violation of the SOp issued by the departnrent itself so far as reasonable opportunity of hearing is provided to the assessee. 4. fhe second ground of challense was that the assessrng officer has passed the impugned order in a mechiLnicar manner w.ithout application ol mincl and without due consideration of the detailed reply which rhe petitioner had subnritted to tL e show cause notlce 5. The contention of the leamed counsel for the petitioner was that the perusai of the impugned orcler would go to show that the impugned order is not a speaking order in as much as it is only a copy cut paste order incorporating the entjre contents of the show

3 cause notlce in the impugned order and thus, it is evidently clear that the assessing officer has himsell not gone into the merits of the case, more particularly,, the reply that the petitioner has given to the show cause notice. The impugned order also does not bear any reflection so far as the consideration of the reply or un-acceptance of the contentions raised in the reply in the assessment order is concemed 6. The Bench had the occasion ofgoing through the contents of the impugned assessment order and the contents of the show cause notice issued. From the perusal of the two' it clearly reflects that the impugned order in fact contains certain paragraphs those which are verbatim the same that which are the contents reflected in the show cause notice. The contents of paragraph Nos'2 3'2' 2'3'3 and 2.3.4 of the show cause notice has been verbatim reproduced as the findings of the Assessment Order in so t-ar as paragraph Nos 4 3'2' 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 of the impugned order is concemed' T.TheaforesaidfactitselfissufficientenoughfortheBenchto reach to the conclusion that the impugned assessment order has not been passed after due application of mind or on due perusal of the

4 contents of the show cause notice or the reply givt:n to the show cause notice. Though in paragraph No.4.2, there is a reference of the reply of the assessee along with the docum:nts fumished having been perused with, carefully and on due consideration. but the reasons for finding it to be un-acceptable why those ()f documents were ull-acceptable is not reflected in the impugned older. 8. There does not seem to be any reasons given by.the authority so as not to accept the said contention raised by the petitioner in the reply to thc shorv cause notice. 9. The impugned order in the opinion of this Benr.h deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted back to the assessing officer for passing of fresh order after due consideration of the reply that the petitioner had submittecl to the shorv cause notice on 02.03.2026 and pass a reasoned and speaking order 10. As regards the first ground raised by the learnerl counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the department has not granted reasonable chance to submit their reply to the show r.ause notice.

5 we find that the show cause notice was issued on 26'02'2026 asking the assessee / petitioner to submit their reply' on or belore 02.03.2026, we find that the petitioner had infact not sought for any extension of time, rather had availed the limited time that was granted and have submitted a detailed and exhaustive reply explaining the entire transaction referred in the sho*'cause notice itself. I l. Since the petitioner has already submitted a detailed and exhaustive reply within the stipulated period in terms of the show cause notice itself and without seeking any extension of time in termsoftheSOP,wedonotfindthesaidground,ofthepetitioner being deprived of reasonable opportunity to respond to the show cause notice being available now in the given factual backdrop' Further, so lar as the other ground is concemed as has been discussed above, we do not find the impugned order to be a speaking order and the order passed is without application of mind and the same stands set aside / quashed and the consequential demand notice, if any, raised would also automatically stand set aside / quashed.

6 Let the petitioner upload the order of this Court passed in the present writ petition in the portal and the leamed sienior Standing Counsel shall instruct the department to open the portal fbr fuither proceedings 13. 11 is made clear that this Court had interl.ered with the impugned order only on the aspect of the sarne. being not a reasoned order and an order ,,vithout dealing with the reply given by the petitiore. herein. 'r'he assessing officer t'ererbre sha, pass lresh assessment order strictly based upon the mate.ials available on record 14. Accordingiy, this writ petition stands allowed. -lhere shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, i1.any, shall stand closecl 2 //TRUE COPY// SD/-T. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To, '1 The Union of lndia, Through its Revenue Secretary' Department of Revenue' Ministry of Finance, 128-A/North Block, New Delhi 2. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department National Faceless Assessment Centre Znd iloor, Jawaharlal Nehiu Stadiurn New Delhi-1'10 003 Email id samadhan faceless.appeal@incometax gov.in' 3 The Deputy Commissioner of lncome{ax, Circle '1(1)' T Tower Hyderabad' - f"Lngrn, 500028 Email id Hyderabad deit l l@incometax gov in 4. One CC to SRI ZUBIN J F POOVATHINKAL, Advocate |OPUCI

5 One CC to SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO' Deputy Solicitor General of lndia' High d"rrt t"t in" strt" of Telangana at Hyderabad [OPUCL one CC to Ms.B.SAPNA R;DDY, SC for lncome Tax Department [OPUC] l-r 7 Two CD CoPies BSK BS F

HIGH COURT DATED: 2710412026 o {)c t ffiiDN.. "l .t l() ILJ 16 ;r:i 2l] * t )l i ' J- 1^ t-1. -.t'- ,t4v ORDER WP.No.13227 ot 2026 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS "\ ., ( pr il',w (;)