ORDER :

1. Challenging the action of the 2nd respondent in passing the impugned final assessment order in DIN: ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2021-22/1036001622(1) dated 29.09.2021 issued under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the present writ petition is filed.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is assessed to tax vide PAN No. ACAPM-9587E under the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent. For the Assessment Year 2015-16, the petitioner filed his returns on 29.09.2015 declaring the total income at Rs. 3,94,84,810/- after claiming exemption of Rs. 1,22,34,821/- under Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his revised returns on 31.10.2015 declaring the total income at Rs. 3,94,84,810/-. The assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 21.04.2017 determining the assessed income at Rs. 3,99,40,410/-. Thereafter, the said assessment order dated 21.04.2017 was set aside by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirupathi vide his Orders F. No. 263/Pr.CIT/TPT/2019-20, dated 13.03.2020 directing the Assessment Officer to re-assess the assessment de novo in accordance with law after making necessary examination and verification with regard to the issue. Pursuant to the said directions, a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act along with a questionnaire was issued to the petitioner on 08.02.2021 calling for his explanation. In response thereto, the petitioner has submitted a detailed reply on 18.02.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice as to why the assessment should not be completed as per the assessment order dated 26.09.2021 and directing him to file his objections, if any, on or before 27.09.2021. It is the further case of the petitioner that though he specifically requested for personal hearing through video conferencing, the impugned order of assessment dated 29.09.2021 came to be passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without affording any opportunity of being heard through video conferencing. The same is challenged in this writ petition as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.

3. The 2nd respondent filed his counter admitting that the petitioner was not given opportunity of personal hearing through video conferencing as sought by him, but, however, contended that he was given sufficient opportunities in accordance with the principles of natural justice, which were not availed of by the petitioner. The petitioner has not made out any, prima facie, case seeking interference of this court, and as such sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 144B (7) (vii) and (ix) of the Act, which reads as under:

“144B Faceless Assessment:

(7) For the purposes of faceless assessment:

(i) xxx xxx xxx

(ii) xxx xxx xxx

(iii) xxx xxx xxx

(vi) xxx xxx xxx

(v) xxx xxx xxx

(vi) xxx xxx xxx

(vii) in a case where a variation is proposed in the draft assessment order or final draft assessment order or revised draft assessment order, and an opportunity is provided to the assessee by serving a notice calling upon him to show cause as to why the assessment should not be completed as per the such draft or final draft or revised draft assessment order, the assessee or his authorised representative, as the case may be, may request for personal hearing so as to make his oral submissions or present his case before the income-tax authority in any unit.

(viii) xxx xxx xxx

(ix) where the request for personal hearing has been approved by the Chief Commissioner or the Director General, in charge of the Regional Faceless Assessment Centre, such hearing shall be conducted exclusively through video conferencing or video telephony, including use of any telecommunication application software which supports video conferencing or video telephony, in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Board.”

5. A reading of the abo