IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that adherence to natural justice is essential, particularly the right to a fair hearing, which was not upheld in this case.

JUDGMENT :

Bhargav D. Karia, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Manish J. Shah for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani for the respondent no.1.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent. Having regard to the controversy in narrow compass, with the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties the matter is taken up for hearing.

3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Assessment Order dated 20.09.2021 for the Assessment Year 2018-19 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) along with the demand notice under Section 156 of the Act on the ground that the petitioner has not been provided opportunity of hearing through video conference.

4. Therefore, We entertain this petition on the limited ground of breach of principles of natural justice and other facts are not narrated in detail.

5. The petitioner filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2018–19 declaring income of Rs.19,107/- being the bank interest. The case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny and notices were issued under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act from time to time and the petitioner filed various replies in such notices.

5.1. The respondent no.2 thereafter issued show-cause notice along with draft assessment order on 03.05.2021 for proposing addition of Rs.10,41,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act on the premise that the share subscription money received by the petitioner has remained unexplained.

5.2. The petitioner submitted the reply on 05.05.2021 and also referred to the earlier replies dated 28.02.2021 and 03.03.2021 along with the documents and replies furnished in response to the notice under Section 133(6) of the Act and it was pointed of that such reply was not considered while framing draft assessment order.

5.3. The petitioner also filed exhaustive reply citing four direct binding precedence over the subject matter and also furnished particulars of source of the funds in the hands of the share holders by referring to the documents furnished earlier.

5.4. The petitioner requested for personal hearing through video conferencing on 09.05.2021 on the Income Tax Portal so as to explain in detail about the proposed addition in person.

5.5. The petitioner received a letter dated 27.07.2021 from the respondent no.1, intimating the date of personal hearing on 25.06.2021. As the said intimation contained the previous date, no video conferencing could take place and realizing such mistake, the respondent no.1 sent another letter dated 13.08.2021 to the petitioner intimating date of the video conferencing on 17.08.2021 at 02.15 p.m. On 17.08.2021, no video conference could take place because of technical difficulty. Thereafter, another date was intimated to the petitioner on 03.09.2021, fixing the video conference on 10.09.2021 at 10.15 a.m..

5.6. On 10.09.2021, the petitioner again entered into video conferencing facility. It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner joined the video conferencing at 12:30 p.m. and waited till 3:00 p.m. but the petitioner did not receive any password to join the meeting and hearing could not take place. The petitioner on the same day i.e. on 10.09.2021 communicated the facts on the portal as under :

“The hearing through video conferencing has failed for the second time. We received notice dated 03.09.2021 fixing the hearing through video conferencing on 10.09.2021. Today, on 10.09.2021, we are waiting since 12:30 PM to attend the hearing but the meeting password was again not shared and hearing could not be conducted. We have waited till 3:00 PM and then, we are writing this. We regret to state that the situation in our case is frustrating. kindly note and take this on records that the proceedings are delayed without any fault on our part and that we have