Bir Sein Anand and Company Th Its Managing Partner Naveen Anand v. Union of India Th Finance Secretary Ministry of Finance

ORDER

11.02.2026

¶1Through the present writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the assessment order dated 03.06.2021 passed by the Assessing Authority under the 'Faceless Assessment' scheme.

¶2It is contended that after initial communication dated 03.02.2020, vide communication dated 06.03.2020, the petitioner was directed to furnish the accounts and documents specified therein. Thereafter, vide another

communication dated 28.07.2020, the petitioner was again asked to furnish, on or before 12.08.2020, the accounts and documents specified therein. Again, vide communication dated 09.08.2020, the petitioner was asked to provide the documents. It is further submitted that vide another communication dated 08.03.2021, the petitioner was asked to furnish the documentary evidence regarding the incurring of expenses alongwith PANs details of the parties to whom such amounts were paid. Thereafter a show cause notice dated 20.04.2021 was issued asking the petitioner to explain as to why the assessment should not be completed in terms of draft assessment order.

¶3The petitioner claims to have submitted replies to the aforesaid notices on

24.04.2021 and 28.04.2021 and also to have specifically requested for a personal hearing. It is urged that without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to enable the petitioner to explain the details and furnish information, the impugned assessment order came to be issued on

03.06.2021

¶4The respondents have filed the response, raising objection regarding entertainability of the writ petition on the ground that an alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner. It is further stated that number of opportunities were granted to the petitioner and on each occasion, adjournments were sought.

¶5Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶6In para 17 of the writ petition, the petitioner has specifically pleaded that replies were submitted to the notices on 24.04.2021 and 28.04.2021 and

that a request for personal hearing was also made. Copies of the replies have been placed on record as annuxures XI & XII to the writ petition.

¶7The respondents in their response have admitted the contents of para 17 of the writ petition, by stating that the same pertain to the matter of record, meaning thereby that there is admission on part of the respondents regarding the replies submitted by the petitioner and request for personal hearing.

¶8Once a request was made for personal hearing by the petitioner, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to accord the same in terms of section 144(B) of the Act and since personal hearing was sought but not granted by the respondents before passing the impugned assessment order, the order dated 03.06.2021 cannot sustain.

¶9In view of the above, the impugned assessment order dated 03.06.2021 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Assessing Authority, who shall grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its representative and thereafter pass a fresh, reasoned order in accordance with law.

¶10The writ petition stands disposed of.

(RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

Jammu 11 .02.2026 Karam Chand

Whether the order is speaking:

Yes/No.

Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CJ Court WP(C) No. 1251/2021 Uploaded on: 13.02.2026 Bir Sein Anand and Company 28/BC, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu through its Managing Partner Naveen Anand S/o Kanwar Sein Anand R/o 158 A/D Gandhi Nagar, Jammu J&K, 180004, aged 59 years. ..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. A. H. Naik, Sr. Advocate (thorugh virtual mode) with Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate Vs 1. Union of India through Finance Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. 2. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax, Department, New Delhi. .…. Respondents Through: Mr. Suraj Singh Wazir, Advocate Coram: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE