The faceless unit finalised your assessment without issuing a draft order. Is that order good?
No. Under s.144B, a show cause notice issued along with the draft assessment order is a sine qua non. Without it the final order was passed without jurisdiction and was quashed.
Decided by the High Court (Gujarat High Court — Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore) on 2022-03-28, reported as Special Civil Application No. 13012 of 2021 (Guj). It bears on section 144B, section 143(2), section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny and Faceless Assessment & Appeals matters.
Faceless assessment has a fixed sequence, and each step is a right. Where a step is skipped the order can fall on that alone, without touching the merits of the addition.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Symphony Limited filed its return for assessment year 2018-19 showing income of Rs 197,12,28,420. The case was selected for scrutiny and a s.143(2) notice issued. After the faceless scheme came in, notices under s.142(1) were issued on 3 December 2020. A show-cause-before-assessment issued on 17 April 2021 was answered on 28 May 2021, and an assessment order followed on 30 July 2021 with a penalty notice.
The writ application was allowed. No show cause notice had been issued along with the draft assessment order, and because the issuance of a show cause notice with the draft assessment order is a sine qua non before an order under s.144B is passed, the final assessment order could be said to be without jurisdiction. The assessment order dated 30 July 2021 for AY 2018-19 was quashed and set aside and the matter remitted to the Assessing Officer for de novo proceedings, with a direction that he issue a show cause notice with the draft assessment order so that the writ applicant can respond by an appropriate reply (paras 11 and 12).
Only paragraphs 11 and 12 of the judgment are available, reproduced in a later High Court decision. In them the Bench treats it as by then well settled that under s.144B the issuance of a show cause notice along with the draft assessment order is a sine qua non before an assessment order is passed; records that no such notice was issued here; concludes that the final assessment order could in those circumstances be said to be without jurisdiction; and holds that the matter should be remitted to the Assessing Officer for de novo proceedings. The rest of the judgment could not be obtained, so no fuller account of the Court's route is available. The statement previously carried here — that the Court found a violation of the principles of natural justice through failure to afford an adequate opportunity to respond before the proposed variation was finalised — is not borne out by the two paragraphs on record and has been removed rather than left standing unsourced.
It is by now well settled that the issuance of a show cause notice along with the draft assessment order is sine qua non before passing an order under Section 144B of the Act.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. Under s.144B, a show cause notice issued along with the draft assessment order is a sine qua non. Without it the final order was passed without jurisdiction and was quashed. This was decided by the High Court (Gujarat High Court — Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore) and bears on section 144B, section 143(2), section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as Special Civil Application No. 13012 of 2021 (Guj). Faceless assessment has a fixed sequence, and each step is a right. Where a step is skipped the order can fall on that alone, without touching the merits of the addition. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Reconstruct the sequence from the portal: notices, draft order, show cause, final order — with dates.
Symphony Limited filed its return for assessment year 2018-19 showing income of Rs 197,12,28,420. The case was selected for scrutiny and a s.143(2) notice issued. After the faceless scheme came in, notices under s.142(1) were issued on 3 December 2020. A show-cause-before-assessment issued on 17 April 2021 was answered on 28 May 2021, and an assessment order followed on 30 July 2021 with a penalty notice. The matter was decided on 2022-03-28 by the High Court (Gujarat High Court — Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The writ application was allowed. No show cause notice had been issued along with the draft assessment order, and because the issuance of a show cause notice with the draft assessment order is a sine qua non before an order under s.144B is passed, the final assessment order could be said to be without jurisdiction. The assessment order dated 30 July 2021 for AY 2018-19 was quashed and set aside and the matter remitted to the Assessing Officer for de novo proceedings, with a direction that he issue a show cause notice with the draft assessment order so that the writ applicant can respond by an appropriate reply (paras 11 and 12).
Only paragraphs 11 and 12 of the judgment are available, reproduced in a later High Court decision. In them the Bench treats it as by then well settled that under s.144B the issuance of a show cause notice along with the draft assessment order is a sine qua non before an assessment order is passed; records that no such notice was issued here; concludes that the final assessment order could in those circumstances be said to be without jurisdiction; and holds that the matter should be remitted to the Assessing Officer for de novo proceedings. The rest of the judgment could not be obtained, so no fuller account of the Court's route is available. The statement previously carried here — that the Court found a violation of the principles of natural justice through failure to afford an adequate opportunity to respond before the proposed variation was finalised — is not borne out by the two paragraphs on record and has been removed rather than left standing unsourced. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "It is by now well settled that the issuance of a show cause notice along with the draft assessment order is sine qua non before passing an order under Section 144B of the Act."
It was decided by the High Court on 2022-03-28 and is reported as Special Civil Application No. 13012 of 2021 (Guj). Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 144B, section 143(2), section 142(1), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The writ application was allowed. No show cause notice had been issued along with the draft assessment order, and because the issuance of a show cause notice with the draft assessment order is a sine qua non before an order under s.144B is passed, the final assessment order could be said to be without jurisdiction. The assessment order dated 30 July 2021 for AY 2018-19 was quashed and set aside and the matter remitted to the Assessing Officer for de novo proceedings, with a direction that he issue a show cause notice with the draft assessment order so that the writ applicant can respond by an appropriate reply (paras 11 and 12). It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny and Faceless Assessment & Appeals matters, on section 144B, section 143(2), section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Gujarat High Court — Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Identify the missing step precisely; a general natural-justice complaint is weaker than one that names the omission. Move quickly — this relief is usually sought by writ, and delay tells against it.
Validity check could not be completed. The judgment could not be found in the subscription database; three searches were run — the party name with the respondent's designation, the party name alone, and the party name with the section — and none returned it. What is established comes from Prithvi Singh Kandhal v. National Faceless Assessment Centre [2026] 187 taxmann.com 1033 (Rajasthan), decided 30 April 2026, which reproduces paras 11 and 12 and gives the cause title, the Special Civil Application number and the date. That later decision is not an application of this one: counsel relied on it, and the Rajasthan High Court declined to interfere, disposing of the petition on the ground that an efficacious alternative remedy was available. No decision applying, following or affirming this judgment was traced, and no appellate treatment or SLP was traced. The note previously carried here asserted that the Finance Act 2022 substituted s.144B so that no draft assessment order is served on a non-eligible assessee, that s.144B(9) was omitted with retrospective effect from 1 April 2021, and cited Noel Villas and Apartments v. ACIT, NFAC v. Mantra Industries Ltd and Sapna Flour Mills Ltd v. UOI. None of those claims could be corroborated in two earlier checks and none was verified in this read; they are recorded here as unverified rather than republished as established. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The judgment itself is not in the subscription database. Its cause title, Special Civil Application number, date and paragraphs 11 and 12 are established from Prithvi Singh Kandhal v. National Faceless Assessment Centre [2026] 187 taxmann.com 1033 (Rajasthan), decided 30 April 2026, which reproduces those two paragraphs verbatim at para 3, where counsel relied on them. That fixes the case as Symphony Ltd. v. Addl. CIT/ITO, Special Civil Application No. 13012 of 2021, decided 28 March 2022, concerning the assessment order dated 30 July 2021 for AY 2018-19, and resolves the variance in the respondent's designation. Nothing else about the judgment could be confirmed — the bench, the remaining paragraphs and the facts as recorded in this entry rest on secondary reports, and no ITR or taxmann citation exists for it on the database. Note also that the Rajasthan High Court, presented with this decision, declined to interfere and relegated the petitioner to the statutory remedy. The judgment is not available in a subscription database; only paragraphs 11 and 12 are on record, through a later High Court decision that quotes them. The bench, the facts, the remaining reasoning and any reporter citation are unconfirmed. The statutory position — whether the Finance Act 2022 substitution of s.144B and the fate of s.144B(9) displace the holding — was not verified. High Court decision, binding in Gujarat and persuasive elsewhere. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The writ application was allowed. No show cause notice had been issued along with the draft assessment order, and because the issuance of a show cause notice with the draft assessment order is a sine qua non before an order under s.144B is passed, the final assessment order could be said to be without jurisdiction. The assessment order dated 30 July 2021 for AY 2018-19 was quashed and set aside and the matter remitted to the Assessing Officer for de novo proceedings, with a direction that he issue a show cause notice with the draft assessment order so that the writ applicant can respond by an appropriate reply (paras 11 and 12).
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
Is a notice under s.143(2) a jurisdictional precondition, or merely a procedural step the Assessing Officer can skip?
No s.143(2) notice was issued at all. Does s.292BB save the assessment?
You get a s.148 notice. Can you ask why — and must the officer answer?
The faceless order came without any show-cause notice or draft order. Will it just be annulled?