IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3894 of 2025 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✔

==========================================================

SIDDHARTH MANEKLAL PATEL Versus NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR DHINAL A SHAH(12077) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Date : 07/10/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dhinal Shah for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun Patel for the respondent.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun Patel waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent.

3. Having regard to the controversy arising in this petition which is in a narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the same is taken up for hearing.

4. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of Assessment Order passed by the respondent under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) on 6.3.2025 for the A.Y. 2023-24 whereby the respondent has assessed the total income of the petitioner at Rs.2,13,37,575/- and has raised a demand of Rs.64,72,319/-.

5. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:

5.1 The petitioner is an individual and had filed his return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act for A.Y. 2023-24 on 16.10.2023 declaring the total income of Rs.33,92,280/- which included business income from Shares and Securities and Virtual Digital Assets (VDA). The case of the petitioner was chosen for scrutiny assessment under Section 143(2) of the Act and consequently the petitioner received a notice on 19.6.2024.

5.2 It is the case of the petitioner that he received a subsequent notice on 7.12.2024 under Section 142(1) of the Act, requesting the submissions of documents for verification regarding ongoing scrutiny proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act. Complying the request made by the respondent, the petitioner duly furnished the requisite documents on 1.7.2024 and

31.1.2025.

5.3 It is the case of the petitioner that he received another show-cause notice on 5.1.2025 inquiring as to why proposed variations amounting to Rs.54,85,700/- being expenses/ loss from sale of VDA assets should not be disallowed. It is the case of the petitioner that he gave a detailed explanation in response to the said notice and also requested for hearing through Video Conferencing, as per provisions of Section 144B of the Act.

5.4 It is the case of the petitioner that on 13.1.2025, the petitioner received another notice under Section 142(1) of the Act requesting the submission of certain particulars. Subsequently, on 31.1.2025, the petitioner complied and furnished the requested details, however, again on 25.2.2025, another notice was received under Section 142(1) of the Act requesting certain additional information in relation to purchase and sale of VDA.

5.5 It is the case of the petitioner that notice dated 25.2.2025 was received without any due date to furnish the information as sought for. It is the case of the petitioner that before he could respond to the notice of 25.2.2025, an Assessment Order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act was passed on 6.3.2025, after making an addition of Rs. 1,80,21,957/- and raising the demand of Rs.64,72,319/- towards the petitioner. Thus, being aggrieved by the action of the respondent in passing the impugned Assessment Order dated 6.3.2025, without affo