SN ADVANCE VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT UNIT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/6284/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6284 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI Sd/-
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
=============================================
SN ADVANCE VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT UNIT &
ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR. JIGNESH P PARIKH(14274) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DEV D PATEL(8264) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 28/07/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. Since the issues involved in the present writ petition are
short, the matter is taken up for final hearing and is being
decided by this judgment.
2. Rule . Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Dev D. Patel
waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents.
3. The present petitioner is prayed for quashing and setting
aside of the assessment order dated 17.03.2026 passed under
Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (for short, “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2024-25.
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 13:10:10 IST 2026
C/SCA/6284/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2026
4. The petitioner is a private limited company. All its
shareholders are individuals and citizens of India.
5. For the Assessment Year 2024-25, the petitioner filed its
return of income on 20.10.2024 declaring a total income of
Rs.1,05,91,080/-.
6. The case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny
assessment. Pursuant thereto, notices were issued by the
respondents from time to time, which were duly complied with
by the petitioner by filing appropriate replies.
7. The petitioner was issued a Show Cause Notice dated
08.03.2026, which was issued on a Sunday, granting time to
respond only till 11.03.2026 i.e. merely three days. The said
time period was grossly insufficient and contrary to the settled
principles requiring a reasonable opportunity, ordinarily not
less than seven days. Before the petitioner could even seek an
adjournment, the proceedings came to be closed, thereby
depriving the petitioner of an effective opportunity to file its
reply.
8. Thereafter, on 16.03.2026, the petitioner filed a
grievance bearing Acknowledgment No. 25223006, inter alia
requesting an opportunity of hearing through video
conference.
9. Learned advocate Mr.Jignesh P. Parikh, at the outset, has
submitted that despite the petitioner having filed the aforesaid
grievance on 16.03.2026, the respondents proceeded to pass
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 13:10:10 IST 2026
C/SCA/6284/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2026
the impugned assessment order dated 17.03.2026 without
considering the grievance and without granting any reasonable
opportunity of hearing. It is submitted that the Show Cause
Notice dated 08.03.2026, having been issued on a Sunday and
granting only three days' time to respond, is in clear violation
of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the
impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
10. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr.Parikh
has placed reliance upon various decisions, including the
judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Sanjay
Harichand Chugh Vs. Assessment Unit, (2026) 185
taxmann.com 80 (Karnataka), wherein the Court, while
considering a case in which only six days' time had been
granted to respond to the notice, quashed the assessment
order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
11. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of this Court
dated 09.02.2026 passed in Special Civil Application No.1210
of 2023. It is urged that the impugned order be quashed and
set aside and the matter be remanded for fresh adjudication.
12. Opposing the aforesaid submissions, learned Senior
Standing Counsel Mr.Dev D. Patel has submitted that the
petitioner had, in fact, filed its reply before the jurisdictional
Assessing Officer, with whom no assessment proceedings were
pending. The proceedings were, in fact, pending before the
Faceless Assessing Officer, who had issued the Show Cause
Notice and the only permissible mode of responding to the
notice was by filing the reply through the e-filing portal within
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 13:10:10 IST 2026
C/SCA/6284/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2026
the prescribed time. It is urged that the impugned order came
to be passed since the jurisdictional Assessing Officer has no
authority to take cognizance of the grievance of the petitioner
or reply.
13. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties.
14. It is not in dispute that by the Show Cause Notice dated
08.03.2026, which was issued on a Sunday, the Assessing
Officer granted time only till 11.03.2026 i.e. merely three days,
for filing a reply.
15. The petitioner thereafter filed its reply along with the
grievance on 16.03.2026, specifically requesting an
opportunity of hearing through video conference. However, the
Assessing Officer proceeded to pass the impugned assessment
order dated 17.03.2026 without considering the grievance and
without granting any reasonable opportunity of hearing.
16. Thus, in view of the settled legal position, granting only
three days' time to file a reply cannot be said to be a
reasonable opportunity. The Assessing Officer ought to have
considered and decided the petitioner's grievance dated
16.03.2026, wherein objection was raised regarding the
inadequate time granted for filing the reply.
17. The petitioner had also emailed the grievance as well as
its reply on 16.03.2026. However, the same has not been
considered by the Assessing Officer while passing the
impugned assessment order.
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 13:10:10 IST 2026
C/SCA/6284/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2026
18. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order is quashed
and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer
for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer shall afford the
petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing including an
opportunity of personal hearing, if otherwise permissible in law
and thereafter pass a fresh order in accordance with law within
a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment.
19. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition
succeeds. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
MAHESH/115
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 13:10:10 IST 2026