Wp/3857/2024 Of Maganbhai Nanabhai Patel v. Assessment Unit Income Tax Dep And Ors
High Court
04 Apr 2024 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newas
Parties
Wp/3857/2024 Of Maganbhai Nanabhai Patel v. Assessment Unit Income Tax Dep And Ors
Date of order
04 Apr 2024
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp/3857/2024 Of Maganbhai Nanabhai Patel v. Assessment Unit Income Tax Dep And Ors, the High Court (2024) decided the matter.
Decision: We remand the matter for denovo hearing.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitallysigned byPURTI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONPURTIPRASADPRASADPARABPARABDate:2024.04.0517:36:34+0530WRIT PETITION NO. 3857 OF 2024
Maganbhai Nanabhai Patel
….Petitioner
V/s.Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department,National Faceless Assessment Centre,Delhi and Ors.…Respondents
----
Mr. Gunjan Kakkad i/b Mint & Confreres for Petitioner.Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for Respondents-Revenue.
----
CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATED : 4[th] APRIL 2024
P.C. :
1.Petitioner is impugning an Assessment Order dated 29[th]February 2024 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015-16. Theprimary ground is that during personal hearing the Assessing Officer (A.O.)asked for certain documents and details but before those documents anddetails could be provided by uploading in the system, the portal was closed.The A.O. without giving an opportunity to upload the documents and detailswhich he had asked for, went ahead and passed the impugned AssessmentOrder dated 29[th] February 2024.
2.An affidavit in reply of one Mr. Sanjay Kamble, AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax, Panvel affirmed on 2[nd] April 2024 is filed. It is
admitted that the portal was closed as alleged by petitioner. In the affidavitin reply it is stated that petitioner should not feel that he was not givenadequate opportunity to explain the case and therefore the court may passsuch order as it may deem fit.
3.Since it is not disputed that petitioner was not given anopportunity to upload the documents and details which were asked for bythe Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) during the personal hearing, we herebyquash and set aside the impugned Assessment Order dated 29[th] February2024. We remand the matter for denovo hearing. Within two weeks of thisorder being uploaded the A.O. shall make available the portal to petitionerto upload the documents and details which he asked for during theproceedings under advise to petitioner and petitioner’s advocate whose E-mail addresses are and . Within one week thereafter petitioner shall upload all thedocuments and details which he was unable to upload earlier. On or before30[th] June 2024 the Assessment Order shall be passed dealing with allsubmissions of petitioner. Before passing any order personal hearing shallbe given to petitioner, notice whereof shall be communicated atleast fiveworking days in advance.
4.Petition disposed.
5.We clarify that we have not made any observations on the
merits of the matter.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.)
(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.