JUDGMENT M.S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. Amogh Arlekar, learned Counsel for the petitioners in both these petitions and Mr. K.V. Arvind, Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondents. 2. We issue Rule in both these petitions. With the consent of and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, we make the Rule returnable forthwith. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties agree that both these petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment and order since the issues of law and fact are common. The Counsel point out that Writ Petition No.994 of 2022(F) pertains to the Assessment Year 2017-18 and Writ Petition No.995 of 2022(F) pertains to the Assessment Year 2015-16. 4. The petitioners question the impugned order dated 30/03/2022 made by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi assessing the petitioners' income for the relevant Assessment Year by invoking the provisions of Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The proceedings are commenced by the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. It is the case of the respondents that despite opportunities the petitioners failed to file the necessary returns and therefore, there was no option but to proceed with the best judgment assessment mode. 5. In the petitions itself, the petitioners admitted having an alternate remedy by way of an appeal against the impugned order. However, the petitioners, through their Counsel Mr. Arlekar, contended that this is a case of gross violation of principles of natural justice and fair play. Therefore, the petitioners, ought not to be relegated to avail of the alternate remedy of appeal. 6. Mr. Arlekar pointed out that the petitioners, after submitting their preliminary replies to the Show Cause Notices, had requested for an opportunity of hearing. On 28/03/2022, at about 2.37 p.m., the petitioners were informed that the hearing is scheduled on the same day i.e. 28/03/2022 at 5.30 p.m. Mr. Arlekar submits that grant of such a short time does not amount to a grant of any reasonable opportunity. 7. Mr Arlekar submitted that the petitioners are a Government Company under Section 617 of the Companies Act,1956. It is pointed out that most of its officers were involved with election duty. He submits that under such circumstances it was impossible for the officers or their Advocate to attend the personal hearing through video conferencing. Mr. 7. Mr Arlekar submitted that the petitioners are a Government Company under Section 617 of the Companies Act,1956. It is pointed out that most of its officers were involved with election duty. He submits that under such circumstances it was impossible for the officers or their Advocate to attend the personal hearing through video conferencing. Mr. Arlekar submits that since this amounts to a violation of principles of natural justice and fair play, the impugned orders may be set aside and the respondents can always be directed to proceed with the matter after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioners of being heard. 8. Mr. K.V. Arvind, learned Senior Standing Counsel points out that the petitioners, despite several opportunities failed to file their returns for the relevant Assessment Year. He points out that even after the Show Cause Notice was issued, no returns were filed by the petitioners. He submits that in such circumstances, there was no obligation to even grant an opportunity of an oral hearing. He submits that such opportunity was granted as a matter of abundant caution and not because the petitioners were entitled to the same. He submits that the petitioners' reply to the Show Cause Notices and the additional reply filed on 28/03/2022 was also considered while making the impugned order. He submits that on cumulative consideration of all these factors this is not a case of "No notice" or for that matter "inadequate notice". He submits that there was no failure of natural justice and, therefore, these petitions may be dismissed. 9. On consideration of the rival contention and the record, we found that the respondents accepted the petitioners' request for a grant of personal hearing in the matter. Having accepted this request, the petitioners were entitled to reasonable notice to effectively attend and present their version in the course of a personal hearing. 10. In both these petitions, there are clear averments which have not been denied by filing the counter that notice for personal hearing was served upon the petitioners by uploading the same on Income Tax e-portal on 28/03/2022 at 2.37 p.m. The notices required the petitioners or their representative to attend the personal hearing scheduled on the same date i.e. on 28/03/2022 at 5.30 p.m. Thus, a notice of hardly three hours was given to the petitioners to attend the personal hearing. 11. Mr. 11. Mr. Arlekar pointed out that it was impossible for the officials of the petitioners to attend the personal hearing given the shortness of the notice and the inability to contact professionals to appear at the personal hearing. The petitioners did manage to file an additional response on 28/03/2022. Mr. Arlekar also points out that the impugned order is really had no reference to most of the contentions raised by and on behalf of the petitioners. Record also bears out that the entire proceedings u/s. 144 were commenced and included within a short span of 11 days. 12. In C.B. Gautam v/s. Union of India and others, [ (1993) 1 SCC 78 ] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even though it was not statutorily required, yet the authority was liable to give notice to the affected parties while purchasing their properties under Section 269-UD of the Act, namely, the compulsory purchase of the property. It was observed that though the time frame within which an order for compulsory purchase has to be made is fairly tight, yet urgency is not such that it would preclude a reasonable opportunity of being heard. A presumption of an attempt to evade tax may be raised in case of significant under valuation of the property but it would be rebuttable presumption, which necessarily implies that a party must have an opportunity to show cause and rebut the presumption. It was further observed that the very fact that an imputation of tax evasion arises where an order for compulsory purchase is made and such an imputation casts a slur on the parties to the agreement to sell lead to the conclusion that before such an imputation can be made against the parties concerned they must be given an opportunity to show cause that the under valuation in the agreement for sale was not with a view to evade tax. It is, therefore, all the more necessary that an opportunity of hearing is provided. 13. In Sahara India (Firm) vs. Commissioner of Income- tax, Central-I, [ (2008) 169 Taxman 328 (SC)] the Hon'ble Supreme Court highlighted the necessity and importance of opportunity of pre-decisional hearing to an assesee and that too in the absence of any express provision. It is, therefore, all the more necessary that an opportunity of hearing is provided. 13. In Sahara India (Firm) vs. Commissioner of Income- tax, Central-I, [ (2008) 169 Taxman 328 (SC)] the Hon'ble Supreme Court highlighted the necessity and importance of opportunity of pre-decisional hearing to an assesee and that too in the absence of any express provision. Infact, the requirement of following principles of natural justice was read into Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act following the earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swadeshi Cotton Mills vs. Union of India, [ (1981) 1 SCC 664 ] and C.B. Gautam (supra). Later on this principle was applied to other quasi-judicial and other tribunals and it is now clearly laid down that even in these actions, where the decision of the authority may result in civil consequences, a hearing before taking a decision is necessary. 14. Show Cause Notices were issued on 19/02/2022 and the final impugned orders were made on 30/03/2022. There is some merit in the petitioners' contentions about the failure of natural justice in the peculiar facts of the present case. 15. Therefore, without going into the merits and by focusing on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case like the shortness of the notice coupled with the fact that the petitioners are a Government Company which functions through its officials, we think that the interest of justice would be served if the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer for passing fresh orders after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The penalty notices, which were consequential to the impugned assessment orders are also set aside for the present. Further, if the occasion arises liberty is granted to the respondents to reissue such notices. 16. At this stage, Mr. Arlekar requests for 15 days to file a further response to the Show Cause Notices dated 19/03/2022. Time as prayed for is granted. This 15 days period will commence from today. 17. The respondents should grant the petitioners a reasonable opportunity of being heard and thereafter dispose of Show Cause Notices dated 19/03/2022 accordingly. 18. The Rule in both these petitions is disposed of by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 30/03/2022. As a result of such quashing, the consequential penalty notices will also stand set aside for the present. The respondents should grant the petitioners a reasonable opportunity of being heard and thereafter dispose of Show Cause Notices dated 19/03/2022 accordingly. 18. The Rule in both these petitions is disposed of by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 30/03/2022. As a result of such quashing, the consequential penalty notices will also stand set aside for the present. The petitioners are granted liberty to file further replies within 15 days from today without seeking any extension. The respondents are to grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and thereafter dispose of the Show Cause Notices dated 19/03/2022 in accord with the law. 19. All contentions of all parties on merits are expressly left open for consideration by the respondents. 20. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no order for costs.