Reddy Rani Swapna, V. Union of India

WP/452/2026

AI Insights

The case involves Reddy Rani Swapna, the petitioner, who challenged an assessment order and a subsequent demand notice issued by the Income Tax Department under the faceless assessment framework. The petitioner argued that she was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the notices due to technical issues with the e-filing portal and was denied a personal hearing as mandated by the appellate authority. The court found that these actions constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice, leading to the setting aside of the assessment order and demand notice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 840648 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2026
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI
• Assessee Lawyers: JYOTHI RATNA ANUMOLU
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Demand notice; Faceless assessment; Natural Justice; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 144; 250; 144B; 156

Judgement Text

"APHC010001952026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 452/2026 Between: 1. REDDY RANI SWAPNA,, W/O LATE REDDY ANJANEYULU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RIO D. NO. 44-13-31, PEDDAVEDHI, ANNAPURNAMMAPETA, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, ANDHRA PRADESH -533101 ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110001. 2. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, NEW DELHI - 110003. 3. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, RAJAHMUNDRY, ANDHRA PRADESH - 533101 4. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH. AT VIJAYWADA - 520001 KRISHNA DISTRICT ...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 topleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more Printed from counselvise.com 2 particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, declaring the impugned assessment order DIN- ITBA/AST/S/144/2025-2_6/1083286835(1) dated 04.12.2025 passed under Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pursuant to remand under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18, together with the consequential Demand Notice DIN and Order No ITBA/AST/S/156/2025 26/1083286973(1) dated 04.12.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act and all proceedings pursuant thereto, as ex facie illegal, arbitrary without jurisdiction, void, non est and without authority of law, having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and the mandatory faceless assessment framework and consequently set aside the same 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 pleased to dispense with the filing of the Certified Copy of the impugned assessment order DIN-ITBA/AST/S/144/2025- 26/1083286835(1) dated 04.12.2025 IA NO: 2 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 pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned assessment order DIN- ITBA/AST/S/144/2025-26/1083286835(1) dated 04.12.2025, for the Assessment Year 2017-18, Demand Notice DIN & Order No: ITSA/AST/S/156/2025 26/1083286973(1) dated 04.12.2025, by direct the Respondents not to take any coercive steps pursuant to the Demand Notice dated 04.12.2025, pending disposal of the present Writ Petition, IA NO: 3 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 vacate the interim order dated 06.01.2026 in WP 452 of 2026 and dismiss the captioned writ petition with exemplary cost and or pass Counsel for the Petitioner: Printed from counselvise.com 3 1. JYOTHI RATNA ANUMOLU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI Printed from counselvise.com 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 452/2026 The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.C.D.Sekhar) The present writ petition is filed questioning the assessment order in DIN-ITBA/AST/S/144/2025-26/1083286835(1), dated 04.12.2025, passed under Section 144 r/w. Section 144 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18, together with consequential demand notice dated 04.12.2025, issued under Section 156 of the said Act. 2. It is a case of the petitioner that, the 3rd respondent passed assessment order dated 23.12.2019, under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in relation to the assessment year 2017-18, as the petitioner did not account for the cash deposits reflected in her account during the period from 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeal) on 21.01.2020, along with the said appeal, the petitioner seems to have filed documentary evidence, bank statements and confirmations explaining the credits reflected in her bank account. Taking into consideration of the evidence placed on record, the appellate authority by order dated 16.01.2025, was pleased to set aside the assessment order dated 23.12.2019, and remanded the matter for Printed from counselvise.com 5 fresh consideration with a direction to afford sufficient opportunity to the petitioner before completing the assessment afresh. 3. It is further case of the petitioner that, pursuant to the remand, fresh assessment proceedings were initiated under faceless assessment framework and an intimation notice dated 25.07.2025, was issued under Section 144 B of the Act. It is specific case of the petitioner that, no separate notice under Section 144 (2) of the Act was issued to her, nor personal hearing was offered to her. 4. It is further case of the petitioner that, notice under Section 142 (1) dated 04.09.2025, was issued to the petitioner calling for details. To which, the petitioner filed reply dated 19.09.2025, enclosing all the requisite documents in support of her case. Further, another notice dated 16.10.2025, was issued to the petitioner proposing to treat the total credits in the bank account amounting to Rs.44,58,230/-, as unexplained income by granting time up to 23.10.2025, for submission of reply. It is further case of the petitioner that, the petitioner attempted to upload the reply on 23.10.2025, but the Income Tax, e-filing portal displayed that the e-submission facility had been closed by assessing authority and the option to seek video conference hearing under the faceless assessment framework was also disabled and therefore, the petitioner was unable to upload the reply to the notice dated 16.10.2025. Printed from counselvise.com 6 5. Immediately, the petitioner lodged online grievance on 23.10.2025 itself, bringing it to the notice about the closure of e-submission facility and denial of video conference hearing. The said grievance was disposed of on 24.10.2025, by advising to take recourse to the Samadhan Faceless Assessment email ID, without restoring the access to the portal. In view of the same, the petitioner submitted reply dated 28.10.2025, through email to the concerned authorities. Without reopening the portal and without granting opportunity of hearing, the 2nd respondent passed impugned assessment order dated 04.12.2025, under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, together with consequential demand notice under Section 156. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 6. Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. Perused the record. 8. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, she was not allowed by the portal to file reply to the show cause notice dated 16.10.2025, and she was also denied the opportunity of being heard and contends that, the impugned assessment order dated 04.12.2025, was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. It is further case of the petitioner that, despite raising a complaint on 23.10.2025 to the online grievance cell, without restoring access to the portal, the impugned order came to be passed. Printed from counselvise.com 7 9. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that, based on the earlier reply furnished by the petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed. 10. On perusal of the record, it is succinctly clear that the petitioner was not allowed to file reply by the portal and a grievance was also raised on 23.10.2025, to that effect. Admittedly, the said grievance was not redressed. Further, before passing the impugned assessment order dated 04.12.2025, admittedly, personal hearing was not offered to the petitioner, as directed by the appellate authority in its order dated 16.01.2025. In such circumstances, it has to be held that, the impugned assessment order had been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 11. For the foregoing reasons, without going into the merits of the matter, this Court feels that, it is appropriate to set aside the impugned assessment order dated 04.12.2025, passed by the 2nd respondent and accordingly, the same is set aside. Consequently, the demand notice dated 04.12.2025, issued under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, shall also stand set aside. It is needless to mention that the petitioner is permitted to file reply to the show cause notice dated 16.10.2025, and thereafter, opportunity of being heard shall be provided before passing appropriate orders. Printed from counselvise.com 8 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is Allowed, directing the respondents to take up the assessment of the petitioner afresh, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Dt.23.02.2026 DSB Printed from counselvise.com 9 04 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WP.No.452 of 2026 Dated 23.02.2026 U DSB Printed from counselvise.com "