ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI)

1. Heard Mr. B.S. Soparkar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Maunil Yajnik for the respondents.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Maulin Yajnik, learned Senior Standing Counsel, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.

3. Having regard to the controversy involved in this petition, with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing and final disposal today. The present petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the Assessment Order dated 27.03.2026 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), read with Section 144B of the Act.

4. The brief facts giving rise to filing of the present writ petition are as under:

4.1. The petitioner is an individual assessee, who filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2024-25 on 26.10.2024 declaring total income at Nil and reported business loss of Rs.41,47,716/-. The case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny assessment. Thereafter, notices were issued by the respondents from time to time which were duly complied with by the petitioner by filing replies.

4.2. In response to the show cause notice dated 14.03.2026, the petitioner requested for personal hearing through video conference. It is the case of the petitioner that though the request for video conference was accepted and the same was scheduled on 23.03.2026 at 05:00 pm, the password required for joining the video conference was not provided and therefore, the petitioner was unable to attend hearing. It is the case of the petitioner that this fact was duly brought to the notice of the respondents vide submission dated 23.03.2026. However, the respondent without considering the submission and without granting adequate opportunity of hearing, passed the impugned order, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is the case of the petitioner that despite the request, without considering the same and without granting any opportunity of hearing through video conferencing, the respondents passed an Assessment Order dated 27.03.2026 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act read with Section 144B of the Act raising demand of Rs.16,63,84,460/- along with penalty under Section 274 of the Act read with Section 270A of the Act as well as under Section 274 read with Section 271AAC(1) of the Act are also issued on 27.03.2026. Hence, the impugned order dated 27.03.2026 is passed in clear and gross violation of the principles of natural justice which is now impugned in the present writ petition.

5. Mr. B.S. Soparkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the respondents has passed the Assessment Order under Section Section 143(3) of the Act read with 144B of the Act is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice without providing an opportunity of video conferencing as per Section 144B(6)(vii) of the Act and Section 144B(6)(viii) of the Act. Learned advocate Mr. B.S. Soparkar has further submitted that though the petitioner had made a specific request for hearing through video conferencing and the same is also reflected on portal, however without granting opportunity of hearing through video conferencing, the final Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Act read with Section 144B of the Act was passed raising a demand of Rs.16,63,84,460/-.

5.1 It was further submitted by learned advocate Mr B.S. Soparkar that the final Assessment Order is passed with a predetermined approach which is detrimental to the petitioner as it is without granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

5.2. It was further pointed out by learned advocate Mr. B.S. Soparkar that Section 144B(6)(vii) of the Act specifically states that in a case where a variation is proposed in the incom