HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD WRIT PETITION No.282 OF 2020 ORDER (ORAL): (Per MSR,J) Petitioner in this writ petition has assailed order dated 15.12.2019 passed by 3rd respondent pursuant to notice under Section 143(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short IT Act ), issued electronically to petitioner firm on 14.08.2018 on ground that petitioner did not respond to notices issued thereafter on 25.10.2019 and 22.11.2019 under Section 142(1) of IT Act. 2. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that Partner of petitioner, who has filed writ petition, is illiterate person not having computer knowledge and at time of filing first income tax return of firm, he had given mobile number and mail address of son of another partner for primary communication and has given auditor s mobile number and mail address for secondary communication. It is his contention that earlier notices which were received by son of other partner had not been forwarded by said individual to petitioner because of which, there was delay in responding to notices issued on 14.08.2018, 25.10.2019 and 22.11.2019. It is contended that show cause notice dated 09.12.2019 in physical form was sent to deponent of affidavit filed in support of writ petition on behalf 2 MSR,J & TA,J WP No.282 of 2020 of petitioner through post on 12.12.2019 proposing assessment under Section 144 of IT Act and he then sent reply on 12.12.2019 itself seeking time till 20.12.2019, but, within two days on 15.12.2019, impugned assessment order has been passed. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner refers to circular instructions issued by Director of Income Tax (Systems) to entire Income Tax Department vide F.No.CIT-ITBA/Misc.TB/ 2019-20 dated 26.12.2019 informing all assessing officers that facility of electronic submission of documents through e-proceeding by assessees shall be automatically closed only on 29.12.2019; that 3rd respondent is fully aware of this and though 3rd respondent could have granted time till 20.12.2019, he deliberately went ahead and passed impugned order on 15.12.2019. 4. Though in counter filed by respondents, it is contended that petitioner did not respond to notices dated 14.08.2018, 25.10.2019 and 22.11.2019, it is not disputed that to show cause notice dated 09.12.2019, petitioner had responded on 12.12.2019 requesting time till 20.12.2019 to file objections and material before 3rd respondent. But, strangely, without granting time as sought by petitioner, on 15.12.2019, mere two days after receipt of petitioner s request to him on 12.12.2019, 3rd respondent completed assessment for assessment year 2017-18 in hurried manner depriving petitioner of opportunity to 3 MSR,J & TA,J WP No.282 of 2020 file objections though there was ample time till 31.12.2019 for him to complete assessment. 5. Prima facie, we are of opinion that action of 3rd respondent is arbitrary as he ought to have granted time till 20.12.2019 to petitioner to file objections and documents. 6. Accordingly, impugned assessment order dated 15.12.2019 issued by 3rd respondent is set aside and matter is remitted back to 3rd respondent to pass fresh order in accordance with law; and petitioner is granted two weeks time from date of receipt of copy of this order to file objections and documentary evidence in support of his contentions before 3rd respondent, which shall be considered by 3rd respondent before he passes fresh order. 7. writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. As sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in writ petition stand closed. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J T. AMARNATH GOUD, J March 5, 2020. PV Sri Dwaraka Balaji Developers v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax AP and TS