ORDER

: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Sri A. V. A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt B. Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department appearing for respondents. Perused the record.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed, being aggrieved by the assessment order dated 21.08.2021 for the assessment year 2018–19, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (for short, “the Act”).

3. Though the impugned order is an appealable one, the present writ petition has been filed invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court on the ground of denial of fair opportunity of representation before the authorities concerned.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to various dates commencing from the first notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act on 22.09.2019, submits that the petitioner had been cooperating with the respondent–Assessing Officer and had been responding to all notices. Wherever a comprehensive response could not be furnished, the petitioner sought time to submit detailed replies. It is further submitted that subsequent to the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act and also under Section 142(1) of the Act, a show cause notice dated 19.04.2021 was issued, to which the petitioner responded on 28.04.2021 and again on 06.05.2021. Thereafter, another show cause notice dated 08.08.2021 was issued, requiring a response within three (03) days, i.e., by 11.08.2021. The petitioner entered appearance and sought ten (10) days’ time. Vide communication dated 10.08.2021, the department, by letter dated 16.08.2021, granted four (04) days’ time to file a comprehensive reply by 20.08.2021. The petitioner sought further time to submit a detailed response; however, there was no response from the department. Nonetheless, the petitioner uploaded a detailed reply along with relevant documents on 23.08.2021, for which an acknowledgment number was generated. However, the impugned order is stated to have been passed on 21.08.2021.

5. In the impugned order, there is no reference to the inter se correspondence between the Assessing Officer and the assessee dated 10.08.2021, 16.08.2021, etc. On the contrary, the Assessing Officer, at several places, records that no response was submitted by the petitioner.

6. It is further contended that if the impugned order had indeed been passed on 21.08.2021, the portal would have been closed, and the petitioner could not have uploaded the reply on 23.08.2021. According to the petitioner, this gives rise to a presumption that the order may have been antedated. It is also contended that as per the SOP issued by the department, a minimum of seven (07) working days’ time ought to be granted for responding to a show cause notice, whereas in the present case only three or four days’ time was granted, which is in contravention of the said SOP.

7. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order, having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing, deserves to be interfered with.

8. Per contra, learned Senior Standing Counsel, opposing the writ petition, submits that the petitioner was issued notice under Section 143(2) of the Act as early as on 22.09.2019 and the proceedings continued for nearly two years, during which sufficient opportunity was afforded. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was denial of opportunity.

9. With regard to the contention relating to grant of seven working days under the SOP, learned Standing Counsel submits that the said SOP came into force subsequent to the passing of the impugned order and hence cannot be made applicable to the present case.

10. On a query put by the Bench, learned Standing Counsel fairly accepts that upon passing of the assessment order, the portal would ordinarily be closed. However, she is unable to explain how the