ORDER :

MAUNA M. BHATT, J.

1. Rule. Mr. Varun Patel, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.2.

2. This petition is filed challenging the order dated 21.9.2022, under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” for short), passed by respondent No.1, for assessment Year 2020-2021. In the order dated 21.9.2022, the total income of the assessee has been assessed at Rs.290,21,61,734/-.

3. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in business of development of real estate projects. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y.2020-2021 on 13.2.2021, declaring income at Rs.218,99,04,610/-. The said return was selected for scrutiny and notices under Section 143(3) and 142(1) were issued. The last notice issued was on 25.8.2022 to which the assessee responded on 2.9.2022. It is the case of the assessee that with reply to the show cause dated 21.3.2022, it sought for personal hearing. Once again, with the reply dated 25.8.2022, video conference (V C) hearing was sought on 2.9.2922, through web portal. The screen shot placed on record, supports the case of assessee that in response dated 2.9.2022, the assessee sought for personal hearing with the reason that matter requires explanation due to complexity of facts. Thereafter, one more opportunity of personal hearing was sought vide communication dated 21.9.2022 seeking personal hearing. However, to the shock and surprise of the assessee, without acceding to the request of V C hearing, the order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act was passed on 21.9.2022 for A.Y.2020-2021. The demand notice under Section 156 dated 20.9.2022 has been issued and the penalty notice under Section 274 read with 271AAC(1) dated 21.9.2022 was also served to the assessee. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents not acceding to the request of providing an opportunity of personal hearing before passing an order dated 21.9.2022, present petition is filed.

4. Heard Mr. B.S.Soparkar, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Varun Patel with Mr. Dev Patel, learned advocates for the respondents.

5. Mr. B.S.Soparkar, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that once the personal hearing was sought by the assessee, it was incumbent upon respondent No.1 to provide opportunity of personal hearing through video conference. As the request of the assessee has not been acceded to, the framing of assessment is dehors the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Act. He further submitted that the procedure under Section 144B(6) contemplates that the assessee should be provided opportunity of personal hearing so as to make his oral submission or present his case before the income tax authority of the relevant unit. Also, where the request of personal hearing has been received, the income tax authority of relevant unit shall allow such hearing through National Faceless Assessment Centre. In the present case, despite personal hearing was sought, the same was not allowed before framing assessment and, therefore, the order passed under Section 143(3) with Section 144B is dehors the provisions of law.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Varun Patel, learned senior standing counsel for the respondents relying upon the affidavit submitted that against the order under Section 143(3) with 144B for A.Y.2020-2021 dated 21.9.2022, the assessee has alternative remedy of appeal and, therefore, the petition may not be entertained. He further submitted that before scrutiny assessment various notices under Section 143(3) and 142(1) were issued, to which the assessee filed detailed replies. The replies in detail filed were duly considered before passing the assessment order dated 21.9.2022. Thus, the due procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Act has been followed and there being no illegality, no interference is called for at this stage.

7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties, it is noticed that