ORDER :

1. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed under Section 143 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act of 1961) dated 29.09.2022, the instant writ petition has been filed.

2. Though there is a remedy of appeal against the final order of assessment, but the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition assailing the assessment order primarily on the ground of not being granted a fair opportunity of hearing in the course of the assessment being made. The assessment period is the assessment year 2021.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Annexure P/9 dated 26.09.2022 submits that he had made a request for a personal hearing through Video Conferencing to the concerned assessment authority. The said application was duly received by the Department also. However, inspite of the application having been duly received by the Department, the authority concerned proceeded with the assessment proceeding and have passed the impugned order without giving a fair opportunity of personal hearing. The counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 144B(6)(vii) & (viii) of the Act of 1961 and submits that it was mandatorily required by the assessing authority for giving an opportunity of hearing upon an application with a request for hearing when made. The counsel for the petitioner further relied upon 2022(6)TMI 551 (Bombay High Court), 2022 (4) TMI 908 (Gujarat High Court), 2022(3)TMI 622 (Delhi High Court) in support of his contention. He also relies upon the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the Department dated 03.08.2022 (Annexure P/10) dealing with the aspect of faceless assessment and the provisions under the Act of 1961 in this regard.

4. The counsel appearing for the Department on the other hand opposing the petition submits that since the final assessment order having already been passed and the said assessment order being an appealable order under Section 246A of the Act of 1961, the present writ petition as such should not be entertained and the same should be rejected permitting the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal under the statute. The counsel for the respondents also relied upon the decision of this Court in WPT No.124 of 2022 (M/s Geekay Millennium Company Vs. Union of India & Ors.) decided on 25.04.2022 and which was subsequently affirmed in Writ Appeal No.243 of 2022 vide order dated 07.07.2022.

5. Conscious of the fact that there is a remedy of appeal available to the petitioner, but this court at this juncture is entertaining the writ petition solitary on the ground whether in the course of passing of the impugned order the principle of natural justice was followed or not? There are enough judgments passed by the Supreme Court as also by this court which categorically lays down that in a case where principle of natural justice stands violated, the writ court does have the power to subject an order to judicial review to the extent of considering the violation of the principles of natural justice.

6. It would be relevant at this juncture to refer to the provisions of Section 144B(6)(vii)&(viii) of the Act of 1961 in this regard which deals with the procedure which has to be followed in the course of the assessment being made under the provisions of Section 144B. For ready reference the two provisions is reproduced hereinunder:

“(vii) in a case where a variation is proposed in the income or loss determination proposal or the draft 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 such income or loss determination proposal, 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 of the relevant unit;

(viii) where the request for personal hearing has been received, the income-tax authority of relevant unit shall allow such hearing