Hero Products India Pvt. Ltd. v. NFAC
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
The reported judgment addresses whether crucial faceless-assessment notices were effectively communicated to the taxpayer's registered email addresses. The assessment was reported as being set aside for want of a fair and effective opportunity, with the matter restored for fresh consideration.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: 143(2); 144; 144B; 148; 282
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- Faceless assessment; ineffective service; natural justice: The reported judgment addresses whether crucial faceless-assessment notices were effectively communicated to the taxpayer's registered email addresses. The assessment was reported as being set aside for want of a fair and effective opportunity, with the matter restored for fresh consideration.
Material facts and background
Hence, looking at the totality of the facts of the case, we
The impugned Assessment Order dated 21st March 2022 (Exhibit-E1) and the impugned Notice of Demand dated 21 st March 2022 issued under Section 156 (Exhibit-E2) are hereby quashed and set aside.
The assessment proceedings are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer.
The Assessing Officer shall provide adequate opportunity to the Petitioner to file replies, documents and submissions in support of its case.
Once the Petitioner files its response, the Petitioner shall be given a personal hearing through video conferencing on a date and time fixed by the Faceless Assessing Officer. Once this exercise is completed, the Faceless Assessing Officer shall proceed to pass a fresh Assessment Order, which shall Page 7 of 8 JULY 13, 2026
be a speaking order dealing with all the contentions raised by the Petitioner. (e)
This entire exercise (of granting hearing and thereafter passing the Assessment Order) shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of uploading of this order.
Appellant / assessee submissions
The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.
Revenue / respondent submissions
notices were uploaded on the e-filing portal and were also sent on the email address of the Petitioner. Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel for the Respondent relying upon the affidavit filed by one Ajay Kumar Singh, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 Kalyan, who is Respondent No.2, submits that the Petitioner has responded to the notice issued under Section 148 of the IT Act by seeking the reasons of reopening. The said notice, in addition to being uploaded on the ITBA portal was also sent
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
were not effectively served on the Petitioner’s registered email IDs. According to the Petitioner, it was therefore denied a fair and effective opportunity to place its explanation and supporting documents on record before the passing of the impugned Assessment Order. The Petitioner therefore contends that the impugned Assessment Order is bad in law and liable to be quashed and set aside on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice.
Centre about change of their mail on account of change of their CA. In the facts of the present case, no deficiency could be found with the assessment proceedings and therefore, the Writ Petition be dismissed, was the submission.
present case. Having heard the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, we find that the assessment proceedings culminating into the impugned Assessment Order, appears to have been completed without granting the Petitioner a fair and effective opportunity to respond to the proposed additions. We say so because it appears that disputes had arisen between the Petitioner and its Auditor, who subsequently resigned on 21st January 2022. In view thereof, further notices issued by the Respondents on the email ID of the said Auditor do not appear to have been effectively communicated to the Petitioner. In view of these peculiar facts, we are satisfied that Petitioner did not get an adequate opportunity to place on record its explanation and supporting documents before passing of the impugned Assessment Order.
Operative decision and relief
The impugned Assessment Order dated 21st March 2022 (Exhibit-E1) and the impugned Notice of Demand dated 21 st March 2022 issued under Section 156 (Exhibit-E2) are hereby quashed and set aside.
The assessment proceedings are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer.
Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment
- No reliable precedent list was extracted automatically; use the full judgment for the citation chain.
This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.
Ratio and legal principle
The decision turns on Faceless assessment; ineffective service; natural justice. The operative result is classified as Quashed Or Set Aside. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Why this judgment matters
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Faceless assessment; ineffective service; natural justice. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
Practitioner action points
- Reconstruct the reassessment timeline: original assessment, section 148A notice/reply, approval authority, notice date and the applicable section 149 limitation window.
- Preserve the complete response to section 148A(b), objections and proof of disposal; jurisdictional defects are often decided from the documentary chronology.
- For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.
Do not over-read this case
- Hold Metadata Conflict
- The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy
- Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result.
- Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
How to apply this decision in practice
This Bombay High Court decision should be used by matching the client’s facts to the precise controversy in the case—Faceless assessment; ineffective service; natural justice—rather than by relying only on the result. Start with the statutory version applicable to the relevant year and compare it with 143(2), 144, 144B, 148, 282. Amendments, notifications, later Supreme Court/High Court decisions and a different procedural stage can materially change the answer.
For an assessment or litigation file, retain the documents that prove the factual bridge on which the judgment turns: the original notice/order, replies and objections, acknowledgements of filing/service, ledger and banking trail where relevant, contracts or property instruments where relevant, and the complete appellate chronology. If the case succeeds on jurisdiction or natural justice, do not assume the same outcome where the authority cures that defect. If it succeeds on evidence, identify exactly which documents the Court or Tribunal considered persuasive.
For reassessment/search matters, preserve the original reasons/information, section 148A show-cause and reply, sanction/approval, service trail, search panchnama and the material said to be incriminating. The jurisdictional timeline often matters as much as the quantum issue.
Finin2min reliance rule: cite the case for the narrow legal proposition actually decided, record any contrary authority, and attach the full judgment to the working paper or litigation file. This reduces the risk of a headnote or short summary being used outside its factual and statutory context.
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence
Decision support built around the judgment: reliance, fact match, Q&A, section impact, related-case network and practical next steps.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | High Court |
|---|---|
| Reliance effect | Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. |
| Source integrity | A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending. |
| Subsequent history | Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. |
| Finin2min status | Later-history check open |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- Your dispute raises the same core issue: Faceless assessment; ineffective service; natural justice.
- The same statutory provisions or materially equivalent provisions apply: 143(2), 144, 144B, 148, 282.
- Your matter is at a comparable writ challenge stage.
- Your documentary/evidentiary record is materially similar to the facts the Bombay High Court considered: Hence, looking at the totality of the facts of the case, we The impugned Assessment Order dated 21st March 2022 (Exhibit-E1) and the impugned Notice of Demand dated 21 st March 2022 issued under Section 156 (Exhibit-E2) are hereby quashed and set aside.
- The same legal regime or assessment-period rules relevant to AY 2015-16 apply to your matter.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court ruling changes the legal position.
- The statutory provision was amended for your year or transaction.
- Your evidence, transaction structure, notice chronology or procedural stage differs on a fact the judgment treated as material.
- The case succeeded on a narrow jurisdictional/procedural defect that the authority has cured in your matter.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in Hero Products India Pvt. Ltd.?
The reported judgment addresses whether crucial faceless-assessment notices were effectively communicated to the taxpayer's registered email addresses. The assessment was reported as being set aside for want of a fair and effective opportunity, with the matter restored for fresh consideration.
Which facts mattered most to the result?
Hence, looking at the totality of the facts of the case, we The impugned Assessment Order dated 21st March 2022 (Exhibit-E1) and the impugned Notice of Demand dated 21 st March 2022 issued under Section 156 (Exhibit-E2) are hereby quashed and set aside. The assessment proceedings are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall provide adequate opportunity to the Petitioner to file replies, documents and submissions in support of its case.
What did the Bombay High Court ultimately decide?
The impugned Assessment Order dated 21st March 2022 (Exhibit-E1) and the impugned Notice of Demand dated 21 st March 2022 issued under Section 156 (Exhibit-E2) are hereby quashed and set aside. The assessment proceedings are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof.
What legal principle can be taken from this judgment?
The decision turns on Faceless assessment; ineffective service; natural justice. The operative result is classified as Quashed Or Set Aside. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Which provisions should be checked before relying on the case?
The case engages 143(2), 144, 144B, 148, 282. The relevant statutory version for AY 2015-16 should be checked together with any later amendment, notification, circular and controlling higher-court authority.
When is this judgment most useful to a taxpayer or adviser?
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Faceless assessment; ineffective service; natural justice . Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
What could make this judgment distinguishable or unsafe to rely on?
Hold Metadata Conflict The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result. Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
Can this judgment be cited as current law without another check?
Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending.
Section / provision impact
- 143(2) — 143(2) is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of faceless assessment; ineffective service; natural justice. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
- 144 — 144 is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of faceless assessment; ineffective service; natural justice. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
- 144B — 144B is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of faceless assessment; ineffective service; natural justice. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
- 148 — 148 is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of faceless assessment; ineffective service; natural justice. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
- 282 — 282 is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of faceless assessment; ineffective service; natural justice. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
How the decision changes your analysis
Before using this authority, frame the issue under 143(2), 144, 144B, 148, 282 and identify the decisive facts/evidence. The result should not be assumed from the case title alone.
The decision turns on Faceless assessment; ineffective service; natural justice. The operative result is classified as Quashed Or Set Aside. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work.
Case network: similar and different outcomes
Closest related cases in the Finin2min repository
Related cases with a different result
Related-case links are repository similarity connections, not a claim that one judgment cites or overrules another. Use the cited-authority list and later-history check for formal precedent analysis.
Working-paper citation
Full judgment and source trail
Read / download the clean local judgment copy
| Packaged source class | SANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING |
|---|---|
| Pages | 8 |
| SHA-256 | ee6303ae0755d7342aaa7e21e3d7a53da695a5f13c8a1913fc0f7c25bdf09f9e |
| Original source URL | Not exposed publicly. Original provenance retained only in the private source-closure ledger. |
| Source authentication | Sanitized local full-text copy - official primary replacement pending |