Raja Reddy Sannareddy vs. Assessment Unit

[ 3488 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTIGE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION NO: 6429 OF 2026 Between Raja Reddy Sannareddy, S/o. Late S. Balakrishna Reddy aged about 64 years, Occ: Consultant R/o. 1-BglGlFUEl114, E Block 114 Fresh Living Apartments, lmage Hospital Lane Vittal Rao Nagar, Madhapur, Hyderabad Telangana - 500081 ...PETITIONERS AND 1 Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department National Faceless Assessment Centre Government of lndia, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg Block B, Press Enclave, Savitri Nagar New Delhi - 110002 Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance Represented by its Secretary North Block, New Delhi-110001 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Assessment Order having DIN No. ITBA/ASTlsl144l2025-26t1085550778(1) dated 03-02-2026 passed by 1st respondent for A.Y.2024-25 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, invalid and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) g and 265 of Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same and all consequential proceedings. 2

1A NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay collection of tax and interest and stay all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned Ass,-.ssment Order having DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/14412025- 2611085550778(1)dated 03-02-2026 passed by 1st respondent ior A.Y.2O24-25. Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. C.V.NARASIMHAM SR COUNSEL FOR Mr. MOHD MUKHAIRUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent No.1: BOKARO SAPNA REDDY, SENIOR SC FOR INCOME TAX Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Mr. PUJLIMAMIDI SHASHIDHAR REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR TTIE STATE OF TELAIIGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON,BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE S APARE KUMAR GH AND EH LES I EG HI WRIT PETITION No.6429 of 2026 DATED: 03.03.2026 Between: Raja Reddy Sannareddy S/o. Late S-Balakrishna Reddy Petitioner AND Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department National Faceless Assessment Centre, Government of India, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Block B, Press Enclave, Savitri Nagar, New Delhi - 110 002 & another Respondents ORDER: Heard Mr, C.V.Narasimham, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Mohd. Mukhairuddin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing counsel for [ncome Tax Department appearing for respondent No.l and Mr' Pujlimamidi Shashidhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No'2 2. Petitioner seeks to chatlenge the assessment order dated 03'02'2026 having DIN No.ITBA/AST/S/14 412025-26/108555077g(1) passed bv r"

2 respondent for assess,ment year 2024-25 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural;1ustice. Petitioner has also sought interim protection' The case of the petition()r was selected for scrutiny under Section 143(3) of the lncome Tax Act, 19151 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act',) under cAss scheme due to the following, reason: ..l.l.argeExemptionundercategoryothersinscheduleEl(oldTaxRegime).'' 1J The details of opportunities granted to the petitioner at para 2 of the assessment order a.re extracted hereunder 4. Petitioner sought an adjournment to the notice dated 03.09.2025 on health grounds. Petitioner was admitted in Medicover Hospital for stent insertion on 22-L0.2A25 that was followed by show cause notices dated 06.11.2025 and, 17 '12'2025 b'y the l" respondent. Petitioner contends that he had undergone eye I I iit tiilt:. iir: i,, $I Isil x,l I ,} e li r \ Type of notice/ communication Date of notice/ comrnunication Date of compliance given Response of the assessee received/ not received Date of response if received Response type (tull/part/ adioumment) Remarks if anY Notice u/s. l4 23.06.2025 23.06.2025 08.07.2025 Received 0s.07.2025 Part Intimation letter Assessee was informed that proceedings will be conducted in faceless manner. Notice t42(t') r-r/s 03.09.202s 24.09.2025 r8.09.2025 Received 18.09.2025 Part Adjoumment request Issue letter 01.10.2025 Not Received AU-I 09.r0.202s 5 Days Not Received Show Cause Notice u/s. 144 0,5.11.2025 t7.12.2025 t4.11.2025 Not Received Show Notice Cause 28.t2.2025 Not received

+ 3 ' surgery on 30'01 '2026. Again on 02.02.2026, a request for adjournment was made informing medical ailments and medical reports were filed. on the same day, an e-mail acknowledgment was received from the Income Tax Department for the adjournment request dated 02.02.2026. on 04.02.2026 petitioner submitted written submissions and also copies of documents which are Annexures P-14 and P-15. However, the assessment order dated 03.02.2026 was passed and though issued on 06.02.2026 without considering the documents filed along with the reply dated 05.07.2026 and written submissions dated 04'02'2026' Therefore, there is a violation of principles of natural justice. 5' Leamed counsel for the petitioner has also questioned the designation of the Assessing officer in the assessment order which has been signed by the Assessment unit, Income Tax Department and issued on 06.0 2.2026. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this court to the provisions of Sections 2(7A)' 120 and l44B of the Act in order to submit that even in case of a faceless assessment, the designation of the assessing authority ought to have been indicated, otherwise the whole exercise could be performed by anyone including a ministerial staff which raises questions on the whole exercise of assessment conducted in a faceless manner. 6' Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the decision rendered by the Apex court in the case of Tin Box company, New Delhi v. l

4 \ cIT, New Delrril in order to submit that the assessee should have been given a '1' \\-\ reasonable opportunity of setting out his case' He has also referred to the decision render:ed by Gujarat High court in the case of chatursinh Javanji chavda v. Thr: Assistant commissioner of [ncome Tax, Central circte I (2)' wherein it was held that the Assessing officer was obliged to consider the reply furnished by the assessee and pass an assessment order dealing with the objections raised by the assessee with regard to the additions proposed in the show cause notice, otherwise the framing of the assessment order would be futile exercise contrary to Section l44B of the Act' Therefore' the assessment order maY be l;et aside. 7. Learne<l Senior standing counsel for Income Tax Department has drawn the attention 'f the Court to the details of opportunities granted in favour of the petitioner as leflected at para 2 of the assessment order' She has also taken this court to the show cause notice dated l7 -12-2025 as to why the proposed additions should not be made. she submits that the assessee did not submit his response through registered e-filing account by the designated hours on 28.12.2025. He also did not make any request to seek video conferencing on that day as rr:quired under the show cause notice. It is further pointed out from the dischargo summary issued by Medicover Hospital at page 155 that the petitioner had been discharge d on 24.10.2025 itsetf. Reference is also made to t lzoor;9 scc 7:ls 'zoz+ 1q rMI 6s)2

5 the letter of the Medicover Hospital. It is submitted that the Assessment Unit issues the order under the faceless scheme as prescribed under Section 1448 of the Act. Reference is also made to the relevant provisions of Section l44B of the Act specially Sub-Sections (3), (4), (5) and (6) thereof in order to submit that it is the Assessment Unit through which any communication order both by the National Faceless Assessment Centre and Response by the assessee have to be submitted. It is submitted that the allegation that the order was antedated is no where made out as the cut-off date for passing the assessment order was much after 06.02.2026 when it was issued with a DIN number. Therefore, petitioner otherwise has an alternative remedy of appeal where all such documents and reply, if any, filed by the petitioner can be taken as a ground. Therefore, this Court may not interfere in the assessment order. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the impugned assessment order. We have also taken note of the materials placed on record including the relevant provisions of the [ncorne Tax Act, 1961 dealing with faceless assessment. 9. It appears from perusal of the assessment order that the show cause notice was issued on the petitioner asking as to why proposed variation should not be made on 17.12.2025. Instead of responding to the said notice by the designated date 28.12.2025, petitioner has been taking adjournments. Petitioner also did not click the Seek Video Conferencing button on 28.1,2.2025 for having an

6 opportunity of tLearing. In those circumstances, the Assessment Unit under the National Faceless Assessment Centre proceeded to pass the assessment order taking into consideration the summary of the information collected, Form 26A5, AIS and inforrrration available on the [nsight Portal. Notices were also issued under Section 133(6) of the Act to the partnership firms wherein the assessee was a partner cluring the year under consideration to obtain documents relating to exempt incorne claim by the assessee. 10. We are, therefore, of the view that the contention of the petitioner that the assessment orcler was passed without proper opportunity to the petitioner is not made out. Pr:titioner himself has failed to avail the opportunity of personal hearing despite notices issued one after the other. In fact, the plea of medical grounds does not seem to be tenable as the petitioner was discharged as early as on 24.10.2025 whereas the notice for submitting his response was dated 17-12.2025. '[he Assessment Unit has a deadline to complete assessments. [n such cases, th-gr-.efore, request for repeated adjournments cannot be allowed in a routine We are also of the opinion that in view of the Faceless Assessment under Section L44B of the Act, it is the Assessment Unit through orders etc., are communicated to the assessee. The assessee to submit its response to the Assessment Unit. by the petitioner that the assesslnent has not been

7 conducted by the Proper Officer as it is not reflected in the assessment order dated 03.02.2026 digitally signed by the Assessment Unit cannot be accepted. I l. For all the above said reasons, this Court is, therefore, not inclined to interfere i1 the irnpugned assessment order. Petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal where he is at liberty to raise all such grounds on merits and in law. 12. The instant Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed' There shall be no order as to costs. Miscpllaneous applicdtions pending, if any, shall stand closed. .C. SULEKHA STANT ,,TRUE COPY/' SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to SR! MOHD MUKHAIRUDDIN, 2. ONE CC tC SRI BOKARO SAPNA REDDY, SENIOR SC FOR INCOME TAX loPUcl 3. One CC to SRI PUJLIMAMIDI SHASHIDHAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies PMK BS Vtr

j HIGH COURT DATED:03 t0312026 Zoe * TH€ s ICH Eo t € o i ORDER WP.No.6429 of 2026 SMISSING THE WRIT PETITION * U s c G ."{& S" o 3