An assessment order that merely reproduces the show cause notice without addressing the merits of the assessee's reply is a non-speaking order passed without application of mind and must be quashed.

ORDER

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

Heard Ms. Kavitha Jha, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Zubin J F Poovathinkal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondent No.1 and Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 3. Perused the record.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the order, dated 28.03.2026, passed by the respondent No.2.

3. The impugned assessment order has been questioned before this Court primarily on two grounds. Firstly, the show cause notice having been issued on 26.02.2026, the requirement of the SOP governing the field is to grant seven (07) working days time to the assessee to respond. In the instant case, the seven (07) working days time was not granted. Hence, the impugned order was in violation of the SOP issued by the department itself so far as reasonable opportunity of hearing is provided to the assessee.

4. The second ground of challenge was that the assessing officer has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner without application of mind and without due consideration of the detailed reply which the petitioner had submitted to the show cause notice.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the perusal of the impugned order would go to show that the impugned order is not a speaking order in as much as it is only a copy cut paste order incorporating the entire contents of the show cause notice in the impugned order and thus, it is evidently clear that the assessing officer has himself not gone into the merits of the case, more particularly, the reply that the petitioner has given to the show cause notice. The impugned order also does not bear any reflection so far as the consideration of the reply or un-acceptance of the contentions raised in the reply in the assessment order is concerned.

6. The Bench had the occasion of going through the contents of the impugned assessment order and the contents of the show cause notice issued. From the perusal of the two, it clearly reflects that the impugned order in fact contains certain paragraphs those which are verbatim the same that which are the contents reflected in the show cause notice. The contents of paragraph Nos.2.3.2, 2.3.3 and 2.3.4 of the show cause notice has been verbatim reproduced as the findings of the Assessment Order in so far as paragraph Nos.4.3.2, 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 of the impugned order is concerned.

7. The aforesaid fact itself is sufficient enough for the Bench to reach to the conclusion that the impugned assessment order has not been passed after due application of mind or on due perusal of the contents of the show cause notice or the reply given to the show cause notice. Though in paragraph No.4.2, there is a reference of the reply of the assessee along with the documents furnished having been perused with, carefully and on due consideration, but the reasons for finding it to be un-acceptable or why those documents were un-acceptable is not reflected in the impugned order.

8. There does not seem to be any reasons given by the authority so as not to accept the said contention raised by the petitioner in the reply to the show cause notice.

9. The impugned order in the opinion of this Bench deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted back to the assessing officer for passing of fresh order after due considerati