ORDER : 1. The petitioner’s company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, during the Assessment Year 2018-19, was engaged in production and retail selling of cakes, pastries and ice cream and outdoor catering services. The petitioner filed return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income as NIL after setting off brought forward loss. Petitioner’s case for the year under consideration was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. It was carried on in a faceless manner by the respondent i.e. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. It is the case of the petitioner that various details were called for from time to time and the same were duly furnished by the petitioner. 2. Between 23.03.2021 to 01.04.2021, the respondent vide its notice dated 23.03.2021 issued under section 142(1) of the Act, called upon the petitioner to furnish certain details on or before 30.03.2021. The petitioner requested for adjournment of one week on 30.03.2021. On 31.03.2021, the respondent acceded to such request and granted 6 days instead of 7 days. On 23.04.2021, the respondent prepared a draft assessment order determining the total income of the petitioner and sent the same to the petitioner through the show cause notice dated 23.04.2021 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the assessment should not be completed as per the draft assessment order. It is the say of the petitioner that response was needed to be submitted through the registered e-filing account by 23:59 hours of 26.04.2021. It had also permitted the petitioner to make request for personal hearing so as to make oral submissions or present the case after filing of written reply and on approval of such request, personal hearing was stated to be conducted exclusively through video conference. 3. It was a time when owing to Covid-19 pandemic, the Government of India, vide Press Release dated 24.04.2021, extended the time limit for framing assessment from 30.04.2021 to 30.06.2021. A separate notification dated 27.04.2021 was also issued in respect of the same. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that on 26.04.2021, the petitioner requested for adjournment of at least 20 days for furnishing detailed reply. A separate notification dated 27.04.2021 was also issued in respect of the same. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that on 26.04.2021, the petitioner requested for adjournment of at least 20 days for furnishing detailed reply. Draft assessment order since was issued on 23.04.2021 and within three days the reply was to be filed i.e. on or before 26.04.2021, it was not feasible for the petitioner to so do it because of Covid-19 pandemic situation and hence, he sought for 20 days’ time. It is the case of the petitioner that he waited for the respondent to reply or to issue a fresh notice for fixing next date of hearing in view of the adjournment application. However, no such fresh notice was received by the petitioner. The son of the Accounts Head of the petitioner also tested positive with Covid-19 on 01.05.2021 and he was under home quarantine. Because of this, Accounts Head of the petitioner could not attend the official work as they were residing under the same roof. 5. It is further say of the petitioner that Income Tax Department was going to launch its new e-filing portal on 07.06.2021, which was aimed at providing convenience and seamless experience to the taxpayers. Hence, vide notification dated 20.05.2021, CBDT informed the stakeholders that in preparation for the aforesaid launch and for migration activities, existing portal of Department at www.incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in would not be available to the taxpayers as well as to the other external stakeholders for a brief period of 6 days i.e. from 01.06.2021 to 06.06.2021. The new e-filing portal also had various technical glitches and many of them have continued thereafter. It is the say of the petitioner that in the midst of all these, the respondent straightway passed final assessment order on 16.06.2021 under section 143(3) r/w section 144B of the Act determining the assessed income at Rs. 34,96,59,683/- after making sizable additions and demand was raised of Rs. 37,53,09,160/-. A serious grievance is with regard to non response to the request of grant of 20 days or permitting filing of reply to the show cause notice. Hence, the present petition with the following prayers: “7. 34,96,59,683/- after making sizable additions and demand was raised of Rs. 37,53,09,160/-. A serious grievance is with regard to non response to the request of grant of 20 days or permitting filing of reply to the show cause notice. Hence, the present petition with the following prayers: “7. The petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order and be pleased to: (a) quash and set aside the impugned Assessment Order dated 16.06.2021 as well as the demand notice dated 16.06.21 for the Assessment Year 2018-19 at ANNEXURE “A (Colly.)” to this petition. (b) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, to stay the implementation and operation of the impugned Assessment Order dated 16.06.2021 as well as the demand notice dated 16.06.2021 for the Assessment Year 2018-19 at ANNEXURE “A (Colly.)” to this petition. (c) any other and further relief deemed just and proper be granted in the interest of justice. (d) to provide for the cost of this petition.” 6. This court on issuance of notice, had directed the respondent to respond to prayers and affidavit-in-reply is filed by respondent No. 2 - Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad, who has denied all the allegations. It is not disputed that the request had come from the petitioner on 26/04/2021 for adjournment of 20 days. However, according to the assessing officer, he acceded to such a request and also waited beyond 20 days. When nothing was heard from the petitioner, on 16.06.2021, he has framed assessment order, after considering the evidence adduced by the assessee by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Chronological events have been reproduced: “5. Before adverting further, the relevant dates necessary for adjudication are as under: S. No. Date Particulars 1. 22.9.2019 The case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) was issued wherein the petitioner was requested to file his reply on or before 17.10.2019. 2. 09.10.2019 The petitioner submitted its response. 3. 23.11.2020 Notice under Section 142(1) was issued and the petitioner was requested to furnish its reply on or before 4.12.2020. 4. 4.12.2020 The petitioner submitted its responses to the notice dated 23.11.2020. 06.02.2021 5. 2. 09.10.2019 The petitioner submitted its response. 3. 23.11.2020 Notice under Section 142(1) was issued and the petitioner was requested to furnish its reply on or before 4.12.2020. 4. 4.12.2020 The petitioner submitted its responses to the notice dated 23.11.2020. 06.02.2021 5. 16.02.2021 The Assessing Officer issued notices under Section 142(1) of the Act and called upon the petitioner to furnish certain details. 21.02.2021 6. 23.02.2021 The petitioner filed its response. 7. 18.03.2021 The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. 8. 25.03.2021 The petitioner filed his response. 9. 23.03.2021 Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued and called upon the petitioner to furnish details on or before 30.03.2021. 10. 30.03.2021 The petitioner filed adjournment letter and requested for one week. 11. 31.03.2021 The Assessing Officer granted adjournment for six days i.e. upto 05.04.2021. 12. 01.04.2021 The petitioner furnished its responses. 07.04.2021 13. 23.04.2021 A show-cause notice-cum-draft assessment order was served upon the petitioner and calling upon the petitioner to furnish its response by 26.4.2021. 14. 26.04.2021 The petitioner requested for an adjournment for atleast 20 days owing to Covid-19 pandemic. 15. ---- The Assessing Officer accded to such adjournment request. The petitioner failed to submit any response till 15.06.2021. 16. 16.06.2021 The Assessing Officer framed assessment order after considering the evidences produced by the assessee by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 7. It is emphatically contended by the respondent that it is the duty of the petitioner also to inquire from the respondent as to what had happened after 20 days. The Assessing Officer had waited till 15.06.2021, which makes around 50 days’ of time. The petitioner failed to submit any reply against the show cause notice and even after requesting for the adjournment, he had not chosen to give a reply. It cannot be said that the assessment has been framed in due haste. The failure on the part of the petitioner to respond to the draft assessment order-cum-show cause notice, would naturally result into assessment to be finalised. 8. We have heard extensively learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tushar Hemani assisted by Ms. Kamya Manit Shah for the petitioner, who has raised the grievance that no effective opportunity had been given to furnish the documents and to reply to the show cause notice and draft assessment order. 8. We have heard extensively learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tushar Hemani assisted by Ms. Kamya Manit Shah for the petitioner, who has raised the grievance that no effective opportunity had been given to furnish the documents and to reply to the show cause notice and draft assessment order. Only three days’ time was granted while issuing the show cause notice to the petitioner making it returnable on 26.04.2021. The grievance is also made that the assessment had been finalised on the date, that had been extended by virtue of the notification dated 27.04.2021 up to 30.09.2021. It is also pointed out to this court, the request that was made earlier and the response given by the respondent. Also it is argued on merits, which we do not intend to touch upon. 9. Learned Standing Counsel Mr. Varun Patel has emphatically argued before us that no fresh letter for hearing was required as the onus was on the petitioner to file appropriate reply on time and more particularly, when time of 20 days had passed and no order had been passed. His request of 20 days had already been acceded to and even if he had not heard from the respondent, there was nothing to prevent him from filing reply. The order of assessment has been passed on 16.06.2021, which is after the lapse of 50 days and therefore, no grievance can be entertained.. There was also no need according to him to issue a fresh notice, in wake of glaring circumstances. 10. Having heard both the sides and also having considered the material on record, it is quite clear that the impugned Assessment Order dated 16.06.2021 was passed under section 143(3) read with section 144-B of the Income Tax Act by the respondent concerned, without any response having come on record of the petitioner to the show cause notice of the draft assessment order. It is not disputed that there has been a request for adjournment on 26.04.2021, atleast for a period of 20 days. 11. Learned Standing Counsel Mr. Patel had urged on behalf of the department that there has been a specific grant of adjournment as requested for, by the petitioner. He failed to point out to this court as to by which mode that the same has been communicated. Before this Court, Noting/Remarks of hearing date fixed on or before 26.04.2021 is produced. Learned Standing Counsel Mr. Patel had urged on behalf of the department that there has been a specific grant of adjournment as requested for, by the petitioner. He failed to point out to this court as to by which mode that the same has been communicated. Before this Court, Noting/Remarks of hearing date fixed on or before 26.04.2021 is produced. It appears to be an order sheet maintained by the respondent authority, which needs to be uploaded on the portal for the department’s use. Assesses do not have access to this. It shows that on 26.04.2021, when the request had come for adjournment for 20 days, the request was acceded to and he was granted time of 10.05.2021 at 12:51 p.m. Thereafter, on 14.06.2021, once again there is a reference of the assessee having sought adjournment on 26.04.2021 but, no reply has been filed to the show cause notice. This Noting misses the reference of 10.05.2021, which is the date granted to the assessee. Assuming that it was the date granted, there is nothing on the record, much less on the portal, to indicate that the assessee has been communicated the grant of adjournment on that particular date. Once there is a request made to the respondent authority by any assessee for adjournment, it is expected always and a must that the same is responded to, more so, when there is a faceless assessment. The reply that needs to be filed, can be done only when the portal opens for a particular time period and not without that. The petitioner contended that his adjournment application requesting for time for at least 20 days, was not rejected nor granted and he was rightly under a bona-fide belief that fresh notice for fixing date of hearing shall be issued. Insistence on the part of the respondent that the petitioner also could have been vigilant enough to make a request once again if he had not heard in 20 days’ time is surely worth noting and it is also noteworthy further that only after assessment order was passed after 50 days that he has woken up from his slumber. Without endorsing to that conduct of the petitioner, we need to categorically hold that, that hardly is a ground to deny an opportunity to the petitioner who was all throughout clueless on the next date of hearing. 12. Without endorsing to that conduct of the petitioner, we need to categorically hold that, that hardly is a ground to deny an opportunity to the petitioner who was all throughout clueless on the next date of hearing. 12. From the chronological events, we see very clearly that in response to the request made by the assessee, nothing had been responded to in the National Faceless Assessment procedure. This is true, it has been brought into the effect for doing the things that makes the system very transparent. It has numerous advantages and at the same time, the authority is also required to be far more vigilant in responding to the request online here. The order sheet of the officer concerned shows that he has granted the time up to 10.05.2021 but, the same was never communicated to the petitioner. Although, he may not have intended that way, but due to either limitation of the system itself or operationalization of the system, on the part of the officer concerned, unquestionably this has happened. The fact remains that the assessee would be totally in dark of the next date of hearing and therefore, if that has resulted into finalization of the assessment against the assessee, there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, this Court needs to interfere by quashing and setting aside the order of assessment. 13. Let the opportunity be given to the petitioner. We hereby restore the matter from the stage at which it was. Respondent is directed to give an opportunity to the petitioner by granting time of two weeks to respond to the show cause notice from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Let there be a specific date given of two weeks to the petitioner within which, the petitioner shall file his reply without asking for further adjournment. Thereafter, after following the due procedure, necessary order shall be passed. 14. This court has chosen not to enter into the merits of the matter. Disposal of this matter shall not in any manner prejudice either sides so far as merits are concerned. Petition is accordingly disposed of.