WP/14378/2026 of M/s. BVR Projects, Vs Assessment Unit, on 6 July 2026

1. M/S. BVR PROJECTS,, B-239, LEMARTHY PHARMA CITY COLONY, GONNAVANIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM- 5300 046, ANDHRA PRADESH. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR. BANDARU SREENIVAS KUMAR, S/O. MR. BANDARU VENKAT RAO.

...PETITIONER AND

1. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTER, NEW DELHI, ROOM NO 401,2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, NEW DELHI - 110 003.

2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, 3RD FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 001

...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to may be pleased to issue a Writ of

Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring the Assessment Order passed by the 1st Respondent, bearing DIN ITBA/AST/S/144/2025- 26/1087115893(1), dated 10.03.2026 for the Assessment Year 2024-25, as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 14,19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice and to pass such IA No.1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to stay all further proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant to the Assessment Order u/s 144 of Income Tax Act, issued by the 1st Respondent, vide DIN: ITBA/AST/S/144/2025-26/1087115893(1), 1X).03.2D26, for the Assessment Year 2024 - 25, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition; and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. A V A SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI The Court made the following:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

AND

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR

WP No.14378 OF 2026 ORDER:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.C.D.Sekhar)

1. The petitioner is a Partnership Firm engaged in the business of construction. For the Assessment Year 2024-2025 the petitioner filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.35,63,490/-. The 1st respondent issued intimation under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dt.24.06.2025 along with notice under Section 143 (2). In response to the said notice, the petitioner submitted its Financial Statements, Tax Audit Report, Computation etc., on 09.07.2025 in order to provide further details to the respondents. Thereafter, a notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act was issued to the petitioner through the “E-proceedings” facility i.e., by uploading the same in the web portal of the Revenue.

2. In pursuance thereof, the 1st respondent issued show cause notice under Section 144, dt.28.02.2026 proposing to make additions to the tune of Rs.5,22,51,078/- calling upon the petitioner to file its objections by 13:02 hours of 06.03.2026 i.e., by granting four (04) working days to submit objections.

3. It is further case of the petitioner, the said notice was issued on Saturday and 01.03.2026 was holiday on account of it being Sunday thereby the time granted for filing objections is unreasonable. It was further contended that subsequently Assessment Order was passed by the 1st respondent on 10.03.2026 in violation of Standard Operating Procedure dt.03.08.2022 for conducting and completing Faceless Assessments in terms of Section 144B (6) (xi) of the Act. It is further contended that as per clause N.1.3.1 of the SOP, a period of seven (07) days is to be given to an assesses for filing reply to the show cause notice. Since, the time stipulated in the said SOP was not given to the petitioner, so as to file its objections, the present writ petition is filed questioning the Assessment Order dt.10.03.2026 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

5. On the other hand, refuting the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the department made submissions by relying on the counter affidavit.

However, he does not dispute the SOP issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes.

6. Having considered the submissions made by the counsel on either side, it is not in dispute that show cause notice was issued on 28.02.2026 calling upon the petitioner to submit its objections by 13:02 hours of 06.03.2026. It is also not in dispute that the time granted by the 1st respondent would not meet requirement of granting sufficient time to the petitioner as provided in the SOP, which was issued in terms of Section 144B

(6) (xi) of the Act. As the petitioner was not provided with seven

(07) days to submit objections to the show cause notice, the same is liable to be set aside.

7. From the above stated position, it is clear that the 1st respondent did not adhere to the SOP issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, thereby petitioner was deprived of having sufficient time to submit its response/reply to the show cause notice. The action of the 1st respondent is not only in violation of the SOP, but also amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.

8. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, the impugned assessment order dt.10.03.2026 is set aside for the reasons recorded supra.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, leaving it open to the 1st respondent to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

______________________

JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 07.07.2026 DR

Whether the order is:- Speaking Yes/No /Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No /Non-Reportable Yes/No

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR

WP No.14378 of 2026 Date 07.07.2026

U DR