APEEJAY SURRENDRA PARK HOTELS LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

12.05.2026
Ct. no.10

Sl. No.10

b.r.
WPA 9760 of 2026

Apeejay Surrendra Park Hotels
Limited.


Vs.
The Union of India & Anr.







Mr. Abhratosh Majumder
Mr. Avra Majumder
Ms. Alisha Das
Ms. Rupomita Ghosh
Ms. Vedika Agarwal
…. For the petitioner
Mr. Prithu Dudhoria
Ms. Sukanya Dutta
…. For the respondents.


1. The petitioner in the instant case, inter alia,
challenges the impugned order dated 24.03.2026
passed under Section 143 Sub-Section (3) read with
Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter
referred to the said Act).
2. The assessee is engaged in the proceedings of
hospitality operating under the brand name of Park
Hotels and files it return of income for the
assessment year 2024-2025 on 15.11.2024 declared
total income “NIL”. Subsequently, the case of the
assessment scrutiny through CASS on the following
issue:-
i. High liabilities as compared to low
income/receipts

2
ii. Large any other amount allowable
as deduction claimed in schedule
BP of return
iii. Creditors are more than 50% of the
purchase made during the year
iv. Addition of assets during the year
in the book of assets where rate of
depreciation claimed as 40% or
higher.


3. Accordingly, Notice under Section 143(2) of the said
Act has been issued to the petitioner by the
Department on 23.06.2025.
4. Pursuant to a notice issued under Section 142(1) of
the said Act, the petitioner has been required to
furnish computation of income, audited books of
accounts, bank statements, details of routine expenses
liabilities, depreciation and other deductions.
5. It is further submitted that the requisite
documents and information has already been
th
furnished on 30 August 2025.

6. The respondent No. 2 issued a Show Cause Notice
th
dated 8 March 2026 directing inter alia to respond by
th
9 of March 2026. Accordingly, the petitioner filed his
th
reply on 9 of March 2026.
7. Thereafter a further Show Cause Notice has been
th
issued on 11 March 2026. The petitioner after
receiving the same sought for an adjournment of four
days’ time on 19.03.2026 to file a comprehensive reply.

3
8. The petitioner ultimately filed a detailed reply with
supporting documents on 24.03.2026.

9. On the very same day i.e. 24.03.2026 the
respondent No. 2 passed the order of Assessment
under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the
said Act making an addition of Rs. 114,77,14,844/-
and raising a demand of Rs.60,68,19,180/- under
Section 156 of the said Act along with issuance of
penalty notices under Section 274 read with Section
270A/271AAC(1)/272A(1) Clause D of the said Act.
10. It is further submitted that the reply dated
4.3.2026 has been duly uploaded on the Income Tax
Portal at approximately 12.30 pm to 12.40 pm,
whereas the impugned assessment order has been
signed digitally signed by the respondent no.2 on the
very same day i.e. 24.3.2026 at 12.42: 53 IST.
11. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends
that the impugned Assessment Order has been passed
mechanically and without due application of mind, on
the very same day the detailed reply has been filed but
the authorities failed to consider the materials placed
on records and did not afford an effective opportunity
of hearing.
12. The Learned Counsel for the respondents submits
that ample opportunities has been granted to the
petitioner to respond to the Show Cause Notices. The

4
assessment has been completed only after the final
reply has been received on 24.03.2026.

13. It is further submitted that penalty proceedings
has also been initiated under Section 272A(1)(d) of the
said Act for non-compliance with the notice issued
under Section 142(1) dated 16.02.2026.
14. The issue before this Court is whether the
assessment order dated 24.03.2026 is sustainable in
law having with regard to the compliance made by the
petitioner and the principles of natural justice.
15. After hearing the rival contention of the parties and
upon perusing the available records, I am of the
considered view that the petitioner has been able to
make out a prima facie case and interference is
warranted at this stage.
16. Though the respondents contend that sufficient
opportunities have been afforded, the fact remains that
the assessment order has been passed on the very
same day without considering the detailed reply which
has already been filed.
17. For the interest of justice, I direct the respondent
No. 2 to consider the reply annexed at page 67 to the
writ petition within a period of four weeks which has
th
been uploaded on 24 March 2026. The respondent
No. 2 shall pass a reasoned speaking order in
accordance with law after affording an opportunity of

5
hearing to the petitioner including a personal hearing,
if required and communicate such decision within a
week thereafter.
18. In view of the above, the assessment order dated
th
24 of March, 2026 is quashed and set aside.
19. With the above observations and directions, the
writ petition, WPA 9760 of 2026 stands disposed of
without going into the merits of the case.
20. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied
for, be furnished expeditiously.






(Smita Das De, J.)