Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 15819
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. Supehia, Maulik J. Shelat, JJ
HIRENBHAI KARAMSHIBHAI PATELV/sNATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE ASSESSMENT UNIT
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6149 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ashutosh S Dave
For the Respondents: Maunil G Yajnik
A party who approaches the court by suppressing material facts and making false averments on affidavit is liable for exemplary costs for attempting to mislead the judicial process.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged an assessment order under the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically citing a violation of Section 144B(6)(viii) and the principles of natural justice. It was alleged that the opportunity for a personal hearing via video conference was denied because the password was received after the scheduled time and the notice was issued with insufficient lead time. The court, upon reviewing the portal records and email communications, found that the notice and password had been sent on 05.03.2026 at 9:57 p.m. for a hearing on 06.03.2026. The primary issue was whether the petitioner had been afforded a sufficient opportunity for a hearing and whether the assertions made in the writ petition were truthful. The court observed that the petitioner had made false averments on affidavit and suppressed material evidence, specifically the communication dated 05.03.2026, to mislead the court into believing that the hearing process was flawed. Hence, we are left with no other option but to impose exemplary cost upon the petitioner, quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegation of violation of natural justice and lack of opportunity for personal hearing in faceless assessment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. suppression of material facts and making false averments to mislead the court. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. imposition of exemplary costs as a penalty for misleading the court. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. On 29.04.2026, this Court had passed the following order : -
“Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Yajnik shall produce the original file by the next date of hearing. The matter is kept on 07.05.2026. In case, the learned Senior Standing Counsel is unable to produce the original file, he shall take the instructions with regard to issuance of the show-cause notice(s) as well as details of personal hearing(s).”
2. Today, when the matter is called out, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Maunil Yajnik has tendered the communication dated 04.05.2026 addressed to him by the Income Tax OfÏcer, Ward-1(8), Bhavnagar, along with the intimation dated 05.03.2026, a copy of the portal record and the screenshot of the email dated 05.03.2026 intimating the petitioner about the virtual hearing scheduled on 06.03.2026. The same are ordered to be taken on record. Copies thereof are also furnished to learned advocate Mr.Dave, appearing for the petitioner.
3. At this stage, we may refer to the statement made in paragraph No.3.9 of the writ petition, which reads thus: -
“3.9 Although the Petitioner had filed the objections in time, an adjournment was sought as regards the grant of the opportunity of personal hearing on the ground that the authorized representative of the Petitioner was out of station and thus it was requested that the personal hearing be scheduled on 09.03.2026. The copy of the letter dated 06.03.2026 addressed by the Petitioner to the Respondent no. 1 seeking an adjournment for the video conference personal hearing is marked and annexed herein as ANNEXURE N1. Severely refusing to the requested lodged by the Petitioner, the Respondent no. 1 adamantly issued a letter on 06.03.2026 and informed that the personal hearing is scheduled on 06.03.2026 at 3:30 PM and no further time as requested for shall be granted in this regard. The copy of the letter dated 06.03.2026 issued by the Respondent no. 1 is marked and annexed herein as ANNEXURE N2. It is submitted that the rejection of the adjournment was received by Petitioner late in the evening on 06.03.2026 at about 6:20 PM. It is submitted that thereafter the impugned order was passed by the Respondent no. 1 on 06.03.2026, which however was digitally signed on 11.03.2026. However, in the interregnum, the Petitioner vide letter dated 09.03.2026 drew the attention of the Respondent no. 1 that notwithstanding the aspect of the adjournment, the password for joining the video conference for personal hearing was received on 06.03.2026 at 4:43 PM i.e. after the scheduled time of the hearing and therefore the same is in complete violation of section 144B(6)(viii) of the Act which is akin to the principles of natural justice of the aggrieved party being heard. The copy of the letter dated 09.03.2026 addressed by the Petitioner to the Respondent no. 1 is marked and annexed herein as ANNEXURE N3. Additionally, since the impugned order was not uploaded on the portal on 06.03.2026 as it was yet to be signed by the Respondent no. 1, the Petitioner endeavored to explain the error in the show-cause notice by the reply dated 10.03.2026, the copy of which is marked and annexed herein as ANNEXURE N4.”
4. When we invited the attention of learned advocate Mr.Dave, appearing for the petitioner to the aforesaid statement made in the writ petition, he referred to the communication dated 09.03.2026 addressed by the petitioner to the respondent-department and has submitted that in essence, the grievance of the petitioner is that no sufÏcient opportunity was afforded despite a re
