WP/4107/2021 of RADHESHYAM AGRAWAL HUF, THR. ITS KARTA RAVI SHANKAR AGRAWAL Vs UNION OF INDIA, THR. ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS on 16 October 2026

(1) 910wp4107.21 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4107/2021 Radheshyam Agrawal HUF through its Karta .vs. Union of India and Ors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Ram D. Heda, Mr. Vaiman Chatap and Ms Isha Shinde, Advocates for petitioner. Mr. Bhushan Mohata with Mr. Prateek D. Sharma, Advocates for respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

CORAM :

ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 16, 2026 Heard.

2. On 14.10.2021, following order was passed:. “Heard. It is submitted that the assessment order having not been issued by following the procedure prescribed under Section 144B of the Income Tact Act, 196 is non-est in law, as provided under sub-section (9) of Section 144B of the Act. It is further submitted that this order has been passed in complete disregard of the principles of the natural justice and it is for this reason the petition filed by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is maintainable. Reliance has been placed upon some of the orders passed in similar matters by different benches of the High Court at Mumbai, as also other High Courts, like the one in Piramal Enterprises Ltd. vs. Additional/ Joint/ Deputy/ Assistant

Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2021)

129 taxmann. com 18 (Bombay) Issue notice for final disposal at the stage of admission itself to the respondents, returnable after two weeks. Mr Ulhas Aurangabadkar, learned ASGI waives service of notice on behalf of respondent no.1; whereas Mr Ulhas Aurangabadkar, learned ASGI waives service of notice on behalf of respondents 4 and 5. Meanwhile, the parties are directed to maintain status quo in the matter, till the returnable date. Authenticate copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner.”

(2) 910wp4107.21

3. As could be seen, only reason why the petitioner has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that the principles of natural justice were not adhered to. Record shows that on 13.09.2021 the petitioner applied for hearing by video conferencing. What transpired thereafter is not known to the petitioner.

4. On this point, we have gone through the impugned order and requested the counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 to point out from the order or otherwise that the request made on 13.09.2019 was acted upon or that opportunity of hearing was given either on 13.09.2021 or on the date the impugned order was passed, which came to be passed on 19.09.2021. Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 could not show us from the order that the request made by the petitioner was acceded to or rejected. The order is completely silent as to whether opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner.

5. That being so, the order impugned is unsustainable. The writ petition is accordingly partly allowed. Impugned order dated 19.09.2021, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to respondent No.3 for consideration afresh, in accordance with law.

6. The petition is disposed of in terms of the above. No order as to costs. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Kahale Signed by: Kahale Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 16/10/2026 15:10:28