[2025:RJ-JP:38152-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.930/2021 IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11822/2021 Ankit Gupta S/o Sh. Rambabu Gupta, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of C-87, Sethi Colony, Jaipur 302004, Rajasthan. ----Appellant Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre, (Erstwhile Known As National E-Assessment Centre) Through Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Room No. 401, 2nd Floor, E- Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi- 110003. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Saksham Pandey for Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, Senior Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Rahul Kumar & Mr. Meyhul Mittal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 18/09/2025 1. This intra-court appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.10.2021 passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No.11822/2021. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant challenged the assessment order dated 30.09.2021 for assessment year 2018-19 by filing a writ petition. The grievance raised was that without granting an opportunity of hearing, the impugned order was passed. The writ petition was dismissed relegating the petitioner to remedy of appeal. [2025:RJ-JP:38152-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-930/2021] 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the assessment order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The argument is that notices under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued on 03.01.2021 and 08.02.2021 were responded to. Another notice was issued on 22.02.2021 requiring further details for assessment. The appellant was asked to file response to the notice on the same day i.e. 22.02.2021. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that appellant was granted opportunity by issuing two notices which were responded and notices dated 22.02.2021 and 28.09.2021 were issued. 5. The notice dated 22.02.2021 directed the appellant to show cause on the same day. The notice dated 28.09.2021 was served upon appellant late in the night directing to file reply before mid night of 29.09.2021 thereby giving less than twenty four hours for filing a response. 6. The assessment proceedings were initiated in December, 2021, the Department continued proceedings for eight months and while granting opportunity to the appellant the time is restricted to hours. The appellant was denied reasonable opportunity to defend the case. 7. The Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai And Ors. (1998) 8 SCC 1 and Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and Ors. AIR 2023 SC 781 held that in case of violation of principles of natural justice, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction is to be exercised. [2025:RJ-JP:38152-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-930/2021] 8. The assessment order passed is in violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge relegating the appellant to remedy of appeal is set aside. The assessment order dated 30.09.2021 for assessment year 2018-19 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent to finalize the assessment in accordance with law. 9. It is taken note that during the pendency of the appeal an interim order was passed on 09.11.2011 which operated till today. 10. The writ petition is allowed. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J DANISH USMANI /42