APHC010461792024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3543] THURSDAY, THE 6th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 24316/2024 Between: Srinivasa Construction Corporation Private Ltd ...PETITIONER AND Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J M NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Y N VIVEKANANDA WRIT PETITION NO: 14738/2024 Between: Srinivasa Construction Corporation Private Ltd ...PETITIONER AND Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 NJSJ & TCDS, J WP.Nos.24316, 14738 of 2024 & 19403 of 2025 1. J M NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PASALA PONNA RAO (SC FOR CENT GOVT.) WRIT PETITION NO: 19403/2025 Between: Srinivasa Construction Corporation Private Ltd ...PETITIONER AND Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J M NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. Y N VIVEKANANDA 3 NJSJ & TCDS, J WP.Nos.24316, 14738 of 2024 & 19403 of 2025 The Court made the following Common Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.C.D. Sekhar) As the petitioner and the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by way of this common order. 2. The petitioner initially was a registered partnership firm under the Indian Partnership Act, having registered with the Registrar of Firms on 18.08.1994 and was engaged in the business of construction of Government Civil Contract Works. Later, the firm was converted into private limited company, the petitioner herein. 3. In relation to the assessment year 2014-15, an order of assessment has been passed against the defunct firm on 23.03.2022. Similarly, in relation to the assessment years 2015- 16 and 2016-17, assessment orders dated 25.03.2022 & 19.03.2022, were passed by the 3rd respondent. 4. The petitioner, assailing the correctness of assessment orders dated 23.03.2022, 25.03.2022 and 19.03.2022, preferred revision petitions under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent issued letter dated 08.02.2022, calling for information in support of the application 4 NJSJ & TCDS, J WP.Nos.24316, 14738 of 2024 & 19403 of 2025 filed by the assesse. It is stated that the assesse did not respond to the said letter, despite granting opportunity of being heard to the assesse on 28.02.2024 and 05.03.2024, the assesse nor its authorized representative turned up so as to utilise the same. 5. Be that as it may, the assesse filed written submissions on 21.03.2024 by contending that the turnover of the earlier partnership firm along with turnover as per the Form 26AS of the petitioner was reported in the return of income of the M/s.Srinivasa Construction Corporation Private Limited, for the assessment year 2015-16. The assesse also enclosed copy of income tax return, audited financials, ledger of sales and debtors, bank statements etc., highlighting the receipts from the debtors and copies of Form 26AS along with written submissions. 6. The 2nd respondent, while observing in the impugned orders dated 27.03.2024 that the petitioner failed to substantiate its claim either before the assessing officer or before him, proceeded with the revision petition and rejected the same, as the assessment orders does not warrant interference. It was further observed in the impugned orders that, the assesse failed to appear before the 2nd respondent inspite of repeated opportunities provided to it. 5 NJSJ & TCDS, J WP.Nos.24316, 14738 of 2024 & 19403 of 2025 7. The counsel for the petitioner apart from arguing the matter on merits would submit that, no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded, despite the auditor of the petitioner Sri Rohit Shettee, travelled from Nagpur - Bangalore – Tirupati, on 18.03.2024, to address arguments and waited from 19.03.2024 to 21.03.2024. It was further contended that, on 22.03.2024, the auditor went to the office of the 2nd respondent by duly signing the visitors register so as to present his submissions/arguments in the matter. However, the 2nd respondent did not give opportunity to the auditor of the petitioner. 8. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 4. A perusal of the counter affidavit it is evident that, the averments made in respect of the visits made by the auditor of the petitioner on 22.03.2024 was not denied. Further, a perusal of the order under challenge would clearly go to show that, the same came to be passed based on the written submissions furnished by the petitioner without providing opportunity of personal hearing. 9. Absence of providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner’s auditor is fatal to the cases on hand, and orders 6 NJSJ & TCDS, J WP.Nos.24316, 14738 of 2024 & 19403 of 2025 under challenge passed by the respondent authorities is violative of the principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to deal with the merits of the matter, inasmuch as it is apparent from the record that opportunity of personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner so as to substantiate its case. 10. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders dated 27.03.2024, passed by the 2nd respondent and the matters are accordingly remanded back for fresh consideration. It is needless to say, the 2nd respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner and after affording personal hearing, pass appropriate orders in the matter. 11. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Date:06.08.2026 DSB 7 NJSJ & TCDS, J WP.Nos.24316, 14738 of 2024 & 19403 of 2025 51 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WP Nos.24316 & 14738 of 2024 and 19403 of 2025 Date 06.08.2026 U DSB