JUDGMENT : (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.) Heard learned advocate Mr.S.N.Divatia for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Varun K. Patel for the respondent. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Varun K. Patel waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : “(a) to issue a writ of certiorari or in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, orders or directions quashing and setting aside the impugned order of assessment dated 17.03.2022 for A.Y.2015-16 passed by the Respondent [Annexure-A (Coll.)]. (b) to issue a writ of certiorari or in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, orders or directions quashing and setting aside the notice of demand issued u/s.156 of the Act on 17.03.2022 for Rs. 2,54,90,239/- for A.Y.2015- 16 [Annexure-A (Coll.)]. (c) to issue a writ of certiorari or in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, orders or directions quashing and setting aside the notice for penalty u/s.274 r.w.s 271(1)(C) of the Act issued on 17.03.2022 for A.Y.2015-16. (d) to call for the records of the proceedings and look into them and be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned notice and order. (e) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition to maintain status quo in the matter and ask the Respondent and its subordinates not to take any action or to do anything in furtherance and pursuance of this impugned assessment order. (f) To allow this Petition with cost. (g) To pass any further or other orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem proper in the interest of justice and in the circumstances of the case.” 3. The brief facts of the case are as under : 3.1. The petitioner is a proprietorship firm and is regularly assessed at PAN:AAOPZ5963D. The petitioner had filed his original return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16 on 23.09.2015 declaring total income at Rs.1,14,20,050/- which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 3.2. The brief facts of the case are as under : 3.1. The petitioner is a proprietorship firm and is regularly assessed at PAN:AAOPZ5963D. The petitioner had filed his original return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16 on 23.09.2015 declaring total income at Rs.1,14,20,050/- which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 3.2. It is the case of the petitioner that initially one Shri Ashokkumar M. Zinzuwadia was the proprietor of M/s. Radhika Jewellers upto 30.06.2014 which was converted into partnership firm with effect from 01.07.2014 by introducing ten partners and the petitioner had introduced stock worth Rs.6,66,82,080/- by way of capital contribution while joining the said firm on 01.07.2014 and the said stock was received by way of gift from his father Shri Ashok Zinzuwadia on 10.04.2014 which was worth Rs.2,63,64,173/- as on 10.04.2014. 3.3. The respondent initiated re-assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act on the ground that the difference of Rs.4,03,17,907/- between the value on the date of gift i.e. 10.04.2014 and the value on the date of joining the firm i.e. 01.07.2014 was liable to capital gains under Section 45(3) of the Act. 3.4. Thereafter, a notice dated 28.03.2018 was issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Act in response to which, a return was filed on 28.04.2018. The petitioner was furnished reasons recorded for reopening and various objections were raised which came to be disposed of by order dated 28.08.2018. 3.5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the said notice issued under Section 148 of the Act before this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No.19068 of 2018 which was dismissed by order dated 08.09.2021. Thereafter, the respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 29.12.2021 by NFAC proposing to make addition of Rs.4,03,17,907/- being a difference between the market price of the stock received by way of gift and the value on the date of capital contribution in the firm and asking compliance by 05.01.2022 and the petitioner uploaded his response on 04.01.2022 to the said show-cause notice objecting the proposed addition. 3.6. 3.6. It is the case of the petitioner that on 10.03.2022, a fresh but identically worded show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner from the Office of ACIT Cent-1, Rajkot proposing for identical addition for same reasons and asking the petitioner to make compliance by 14.03.2022 in response to which, the petitioner filed reply dated 14.03.2022 which was in furtherance to the earlier submissions. 3.7. It is the case of the petitioner that the said show-cause notice was Emailed on 11.03.2022 (time is not legible) and the compliance was asked by 14.03.2022. However, due to change in jurisdiction in asmuch as earlier it was Faceless proceedings with NFAC but this time it was a notice from ACIT Cent- 1, Rajkot without any prior notice or intimation of the order passed under Section 127 of the Act, the petitioner raised an issue on this aspect at the threshold in the said reply. 3.8. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had also made request for video conferencing, which was granted as per the Email communication received from e-filing portal of the Department however, the respondent has passed an order under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) dated 17.03.2022 on the total income of Rs.5,17,37,960/- after making the addition of Rs.4,03,17,907/- and raised a huge demand of Rs.2,54,90,239/- for Assessment Year 2015-16. However, as the petitioner was out of India and returned on 18.04.2022, this petition is delayed and to err on safe side, the consultant has e-filed the appeal to the NFAC on 11.04.2022. 3.9. It is the case of the petitioner that in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, the respondent completed faceless assessment which has resulted into huge demand of Rs.2,54,90,239/- and it is apprehended that the respondent may initiate recovery of the same by taking coercive actions including attachment of the bank accounts of the petitioner. 4.1. Learned advocate Mr.S.N.Divatia for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner prayed for personal hearing through video conference vide reply dated 14 th March, 2022 in response to the show-cause notice dated 10 th March, 2022. It was submitted that the petitioner has also applied for video conferencing through on-line request which was accepted by the portal. 4.1. Learned advocate Mr.S.N.Divatia for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner prayed for personal hearing through video conference vide reply dated 14 th March, 2022 in response to the show-cause notice dated 10 th March, 2022. It was submitted that the petitioner has also applied for video conferencing through on-line request which was accepted by the portal. He invited the attention of the Court to page No.34 of the paperbook showing that the request was made by the petitioner on 12 th March, 2022 and reason for VC was stated to be the matter requires explanation due to complexity of facts and status was shown as open as well as page No.35 to show the acknowledgment of the request made by the petitioner for video conferencing submitted successfully. 4.2. It was submitted that the respondent- Assessing Officer has passed the impugned Assessment Order dated 17 th March, 2022 without considering the request for video conference/personal hearing which is in violation of the principles of natural justice and he therefore prayed that the impugned Assessment 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 providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner through video conference. 5.1. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Varun K. Patel for the respondent submitted that the case of the petitioner was transferred to the Central Circle and was not within the domain of NFAC and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to any video conference. 5.2. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent: “8. It is submitted that a search & seizure operation named operation Blue Diamond was carried out on 24.08.2021 in the case of leading real estate builders of Rajkot and their key associates. In view of this the Pr. CIT(Central), Ahmedabad vide proposal No. Pr. CIT(C)/AHD/Centralization/RK Group & Others/2021-22 dated 15.02.2022 recommended centralization of some cases from concerned AO to DCIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot. In view of the Board's guidelines for centralization of search/survey cases conveyed vide letter F.No.286/88/2008- IT(Inv.II) dated 17.09.2008 and subsequent guidelines for centralization of search cases, the case of the assessee was centralized to this office (i.e. DCIT, Central Circle- 1, Rajkot) vide order u/s 127(2) bearing No. Pr. CIT.R-1/HQ/Centralisation/RK Group & Others/2021-22/313 of Pr. In view of the Board's guidelines for centralization of search/survey cases conveyed vide letter F.No.286/88/2008- IT(Inv.II) dated 17.09.2008 and subsequent guidelines for centralization of search cases, the case of the assessee was centralized to this office (i.e. DCIT, Central Circle- 1, Rajkot) vide order u/s 127(2) bearing No. Pr. CIT.R-1/HQ/Centralisation/RK Group & Others/2021-22/313 of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 01.03.2022 and the jurisdiction of the assessee was transferred to this office from ACIT, Circle-2(1), Rajkot on 05.03.2022. As per the board's order dated 13.08.2020 F.No.187/3/2020-1TA-1 the case related to Central Charges will remain outside the scope of the Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2019, hence, the case was reverted back from Faceless assessment unit to this office. As the assessee had neither submitted any registered gift deed nor submitted even on stamp paper but only submitted a deed on simple plain paper, a notice u/s 142(1) r.w.s. 129 was issued to the assessee on 10.03.2022 by this office to show cause as to why the amount of Rs.4,03,17,907/- should not be treated as Short Term Capital Gain of the assessee for the year under consideration. In response to this notice the assessee submitted his response on 14.03.2022. However, in his response the assessee could not submit a cogent reply. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, on 17.03.2022 at Rs.5,17,37,960/- after making addition of Rs.4,03,17,907 on account of STCG for the year under consideration. 12. With reference to para 3.3, the respondent denies each and every allegation, averment and contention raised therein. It is submitted that the in this para, the assessee is stating that a show cause notice was issued to him on 29.12.2021 by NFAC, later identically worded show cause notice was issued on 10.03.2022. It is already cleared in the facts of the case that earlier the jurisdiction was lying under the charge of ACIT, Circle- 2(1), Rajkot. Further, in view of the provision of newly inserted section 144B by the Finance Act, 2020 the case of the assessee was referred to NFAC for further proceedings. And the above mentioned show cause notice was issued to the assessee by NFAC as part of the assessment proceedings. Further, as submitted hereinabove search & seizure operation named operation Blue Diamond was carried out on 24.08.2021 in the case of leading real estate builders of Rajkot and their key associates. And the above mentioned show cause notice was issued to the assessee by NFAC as part of the assessment proceedings. Further, as submitted hereinabove search & seizure operation named operation Blue Diamond was carried out on 24.08.2021 in the case of leading real estate builders of Rajkot and their key associates. And PCIT(C), Ahmedabad recommended centralization of the case of the assessee to this charge. And vide order of Pr.CIT, Rajkot-1, dated 01.03.2022 the case was transferred to this charge i.e. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot. Hereto annexed and marked as Annexure- R/1 (collectively) are the copies of the order U/s.127(2) dated 01.03.2022 and notice dated 10.03.2022. It is further submitted that in view of the provision of S. 129, if an Income-tax authority ceases to exercise jurisdiction and is succeeded by another who has and exercises jurisdiction, the income-tax authority so succeeding may continue the proceeding from the stage at which the proceeding was left by his predecessor. And the assessee can demand to be re- heard, a notice was issued to the assessee on 10.03.2022. It is submitted that in the notice issued to assessee dated 10.03.2022 from this office, it is clearly mentioned in the last paragraph of the notice that "This notice is issued u/s 142(1) r.w.s. 129 of the income tax Act, 1961". Thus, it is clear that the assessee was provided proper intimation in respect of change of jurisdiction of his case and therefore the contention of the assessee that he was not provided with any notice or intimation in respect of change of jurisdiction is patently incorrect and not sustainable.” 5.3. Referring to the above averments, it was submitted that there is no gross violation of the principles of natural justice as alleged by the petitioner as the Assessing Officer has completed the proceedings in accordance with law and sufficient opportunity was provided to the petitioner to justify his claim and the petitioner has an alternative remedy to challenge the impugned Assessment Order on merit before the CIT (Appeals). 5.4. It was further submitted that as the case of the petitioner was transferred to the Central Circle, the request of the petitioner for video conferencing could not be entertained as the provision for granting video conference by NFAC could not be available to the Central Circle which is required to pass the Assessment Order considering the reply filed by the petitioner. 6. 6. Considering the above submissions, it appears that the petitioner was never put to notice about the transfer of the case from NFAC to the Central Circle except stating the said fact in the show-cause notice dated 10 th March, 2022 and it was left open for the petitioner to imagine that the case of the petitioner was transferred to Central Circle. We are of the opinion that the contention raised on behalf of the respondent that as the case of the petitioner is transferred to the Central Circle, the provision of video conferencing/personal hearing is not available is contrary to the basic requirement of providing opportunity of hearing which would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. 7. The provisions of Section 144B of the Act applicable to the proceedings before NFAC provide for video conferencing and in view of such provision, the assessee would be left without any opportunity of hearing if the case of the petitioner is transferred to the Central Circle under Section 127(2) of the Act. 8. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the petition succeeds and is partly allowed. The impugned Assessment Order dated 17.03.2022 is hereby, quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh de-novo order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in compliance of the principles of natural justice. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No orders as to cost.