The failure to provide a personal hearing constitutes a breach of natural justice, necessitating the quashing of the assessment order.

JUDGMENT :

PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.

1 Heard Mr.Manish J. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Varun Patel, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent.

2 Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Varun Patel, waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent. Having regard to the controversy involved in this petition, with consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

3 By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged and prayed to quash and set aside the Assessment Order issued under Sec.143(3) read with Sec.144B of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and Demand Notice issued under Sec.156 of the Act, both dated 29.03.2022 for the Assessment Year 2013-14.

4 The brief facts of this case are as under:

4.1 The petitioner is a proprietor and engaged in the business of wholesale trading of gold and silver bars. The petitioner had filed its return of income under Sec.139(1) of the Act on 14.03.2022 declaring income of Rs.09,02,500/-. Subsequently, a notice under Sec.148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2021 and was duly served on the petitioner on the portal for reopening the assessment.

4.2 The petitioner filed his return under Sec.148 of the Act on 25.05.2021, declaring the very same income which was offered to tax and later on filed under Sec.139(1). Thereafter, reassessment proceedings were conducted and various notices have been issued, which have been replied by the petitioner. The petitioner received show-cause notice dated 25.03.2022 under Sec. 69A read with Sec. 115BBE of the Act, proposing an addition of Rs.3,01,65,010/-

4.3 The petitioner furnished a detailed reply on 29.03.2022. It is the case of the petitioner that he had given complete details of purchase and sales affected during the year under consideration. It was further submitted by the petitioner that a request was made to the respondent to provide him an opportunity of personal hearing through video conferencing. However, without acceding to such request, the impugned order dated 29.03.2022 along with Demand Notice under Sec.156 came to be issued by the respondent, which is now impugned in the present writ petition.

5 Mr.Manish J. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted as under:

5.1 That in the assessment proceedings, elementary principles of natural justice viz., consideration of documents, replies filed by the petitioner, as well as giving reasoning for non-acceptance of explanation / document furnished by the petitioner has been kept at bay. Mr.Shah, learned advocate, would further submit that it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to deal with each and every averment of the assessee, to consider every document produced by the assessee and thereafter pass a reasoned order which, in the submission of Mr.Shah, learned advocate, the Assessing Officer has not taken into consideration any of these aspects before making huge addition of Rs.3,01,65,010/-. It is further submitted that the action of the Assessing Officer of raising such a huge demand without considering the submissions as well as documents furnished by the petitioner is non-judicious, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice.

5.2 Placing reliance on a judgement of this Court in the case of Gandhi Realties Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT. , reported in (2021) 133 taxmann.com 83 (Guj), Mr.Shah, learned advocate, submitted that impugned Assessment Order u/s.144B read with section 147 is contrary to the proposition of law as the petitioner was not provided an opportunity of personal hearing through video conferencing and thus prayed to quash and set aside the impugned assessment order.

5.3 Mr.Shah, learned advocate, submitted that the time limit provided by the respondent to furnish reply in response to the show-cause notice dated 25.03.2022 cannot be considered as reasonable, as it has been held by this Hon’ble Court in the case