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. 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 been awaiting hearing through video conference since last more than 3 months.” 5.7. It appears that the respondent without considering the above submissions made by the petitioner on portal on 10.09.2021, passed the impugned order dated 20.09.2021 reiterating the draft assessment order by making proposed addition under Section 68 of the Act. The petitioner being aggrieved has therefore, preferred this petition challenging the assessment order on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice. 6. The petitioner being aggrieved has therefore, preferred this petition challenging the assessment order on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice. 6. Learned advocate Mr.Manish Shah for the petitioner submitted that inspite of the fact that the petitioner has intimated respondent department about the reason for not joining the video conference on 10.09.2021 after failure of the department to conduct the video conferencing on two previous dates, no further communication was received by the assessee and straightaway the impugned assessment order was passed reiterating the proposed addition suggested in the draft assessment order. It was therefore submitted that in order to comply with the principles of natural justice, the impugned order may be quashed and set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh de novo order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner through video conferencing. 7. On the other hand learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Karan Sanghani for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was not right in mentioning that no password was shared with the petitioner on 10.09.2021 as in the intimation dated 03.09.2021, a password was mentioned and the petitioner ought to have joined the video conferencing on 10.09.2021. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer in the impugned Assessment Order has categorically stated that the host joined the video conference fifteen minutes prior to the scheduled time i.e. at 10.15 a.m. on 10.09.2021 and waited for 45 minutes after the schedule time and letter was also submitted by the assessee that the meeting password was not shared, they could not attend the video conference, however such fact was denied in the assessment order that the assessee has not received the relevant password. 7.1. It was therefore submitted that sufficient opportunity is provided to the petitioner-assessee and therefore, there is no breach of principles of natural justice. 7.2. Learned Senior Standing Council Mr.Karan Sanghani also referred to the similar remarks in the order-sheet produced on record along with the affidavit-in-reply. 8. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, it appears that the respondent Department has not bothered to reply to the submissions made by the petitioner on 10.09.2021 after failure of joining the video conference due to lack of password as per understanding of the petitioner. 8. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, it appears that the respondent Department has not bothered to reply to the submissions made by the petitioner on 10.09.2021 after failure of joining the video conference due to lack of password as per understanding of the petitioner. The respondent Department ought to have communicated with the petitioner by re-arranging another video conferencing and intimating that the password is contained in the letter of intimation only. 9. Be that as it may, on the facts recorded here in above, it is not in dispute that there is no adherence to the principles of natural justice by not providing opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned assessment order. It is true that for the Assessment Year under consideration i.e. 2018–19 there was no mandatory requirement for providing video conferencing. However, as the respondents have approved the video conferencing for the petitioner and on two earlier occasions, such video conferencing could not take place due to the technical difficulties on the part of the respondent Department, it was incumbent upon the respondent Department to provide video conferencing before passing the impugned Assessment Order to comply with the principles of natural justice. 10. In view of the foregoing reasons, without entering into the merits of the matter, We quash and set aside the impugned Assessment Order dated 20.09.2021 passed by the respondent Authority under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act and remand the matter back to the respondent Assessing Officer to pass a fresh de novo order after providing a fresh opportunity of hearing through video conferencing to the petitioner in accordance with law. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.