JUDGMENT : PRANAV TRIVEDI, J. 1 Heard Mr.Manish J. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Varun Patel, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent. 2 Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Varun Patel, waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent. Having regard to the controversy involved in this petition, with consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 3 By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged and prayed to quash and set aside the Assessment Order issued under Sec.143(3) read with Sec.144B of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and Demand Notice issued under Sec.156 of the Act, both dated 29.03.2022 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 4 The brief facts of this case are as under: 4.1 The petitioner is a proprietor and engaged in the business of wholesale trading of gold and silver bars. The petitioner had filed its return of income under Sec.139(1) of the Act on 14.03.2022 declaring income of Rs.09,02,500/-. Subsequently, a notice under Sec.148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2021 and was duly served on the petitioner on the portal for reopening the assessment. 4.2 The petitioner filed his return under Sec.148 of the Act on 25.05.2021, declaring the very same income which was offered to tax and later on filed under Sec.139(1). Thereafter, reassessment proceedings were conducted and various notices have been issued, which have been replied by the petitioner. The petitioner received show-cause notice dated 25.03.2022 under Sec. 69A read with Sec. 115BBE of the Act, proposing an addition of Rs.3,01,65,010/- 4.3 The petitioner furnished a detailed reply on 29.03.2022. It is the case of the petitioner that he had given complete details of purchase and sales affected during the year under consideration. It was further submitted by the petitioner that a request was made to the respondent to provide him an opportunity of personal hearing through video conferencing. However, without acceding to such request, the impugned order dated 29.03.2022 along with Demand Notice under Sec.156 came to be issued by the respondent, which is now impugned in the present writ petition. It was further submitted by the petitioner that a request was made to the respondent to provide him an opportunity of personal hearing through video conferencing. However, without acceding to such request, the impugned order dated 29.03.2022 along with Demand Notice under Sec.156 came to be issued by the respondent, which is now impugned in the present writ petition. 5 Mr.Manish J. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted as under: 5.1 That in the assessment proceedings, elementary principles of natural justice viz., consideration of documents, replies filed by the petitioner, as well as giving reasoning for non-acceptance of explanation / document furnished by the petitioner has been kept at bay. Mr.Shah, learned advocate, would further submit that it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to deal with each and every averment of the assessee, to consider every document produced by the assessee and thereafter pass a reasoned order which, in the submission of Mr.Shah, learned advocate, the Assessing Officer has not taken into consideration any of these aspects before making huge addition of Rs.3,01,65,010/-. It is further submitted that the action of the Assessing Officer of raising such a huge demand without considering the submissions as well as documents furnished by the petitioner is non-judicious, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. 5.2 Placing reliance on a judgement of this Court in the case of Gandhi Realties Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT. , reported in (2021) 133 taxmann.com 83 (Guj), Mr.Shah, learned advocate, submitted that impugned Assessment Order u/s.144B read with section 147 is contrary to the proposition of law as the petitioner was not provided an opportunity of personal hearing through video conferencing and thus prayed to quash and set aside the impugned assessment order. 5.3 Mr.Shah, learned advocate, submitted that the time limit provided by the respondent to furnish reply in response to the show-cause notice dated 25.03.2022 cannot be considered as reasonable, as it has been held by this Hon’ble Court in the case of M/s. Advance Reality Developers vs. National E-Assessment Centre Delhi. , rendered in Special Civil Application No. 7731 of 2021 dated 20.12.2021 that time limit of three days provided to the assessee to file response against the show- cause notice is not adequate. Relying on the aforesaid judgement, Mr. , rendered in Special Civil Application No. 7731 of 2021 dated 20.12.2021 that time limit of three days provided to the assessee to file response against the show- cause notice is not adequate. Relying on the aforesaid judgement, Mr. Shah, learned advocate submitted that the impugned assessment order is not within the letter and spirit of the ratio/dictum laid down by this Hon’ble Court in the above cited judgement and hence, prayed to quash and set aide the impugned notices. 6 Per Contra, Mr.Varun Patel, learned Senior Standing Counsel, relying on the affidavit-in- reply has submitted that the assessee had deposited money as member deposit with SRMMSUCCSL and the total deposit in the case of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14 came out to be Rs.3,01,65,010/- which was not disclosed in the return of income filed by the assessee for the year under consideration. 6.1 It was further submitted that the transactions carried out by the assessee with SRMMSUCCSL were found to be unaccounted and undisclosed and hence it was considered to have escaped assessment for the A.Y 2013-14, and therefore, reasons were recorded for re- opening the assessment proceedings and after obtaining requisite approval from the competent authority, notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee – petitioner dated 30.03.2021. 6.2 Mr.Patel, learned Senior Standing Counsel, further submitted that in response to the notice dated 30.03.2021, the assessee – petitioner filed his return of income on 25.05.2021 declaring the same total income as declared originally by him i.e. Rs.9,02,500/-. Subsequently, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee- petitioner on 06.07.2021, which remained unanswered as the assessee- petitioner did not respond or made any compliance to this notice. 6.3 It is further submitted that, thereafter, the assessee – petitioner’s case was transferred to Regional e-Faceless Assessment Center (ReFAC) on 11.11.2021 for finalization of re-opening assessment proceedings u/s. 147 read with section 144B of the Act under Faceless Assessment Scheme. Notice u/s.142(1) of the Act was issued electronically to the assessee – petitioner by Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) on 24.12.2021, asking the assessee – petitioner to file his response on or before 10.01.2022, to which, the assessee – petitioner furnished his submission electronically on 09.02.2022 and sought for an adjournment for further 15 days. Notice u/s.142(1) of the Act was issued electronically to the assessee – petitioner by Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) on 24.12.2021, asking the assessee – petitioner to file his response on or before 10.01.2022, to which, the assessee – petitioner furnished his submission electronically on 09.02.2022 and sought for an adjournment for further 15 days. 6.4 It was further submitted by Shri Patel, learned Senior Standing Counsel that, thereafter, on the basis of the record available with the FAO, and on the basis of the facts of the case, the assessee – petitioner was issued with show-cause notice u/s. 143(3), 147, read with sec.143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act on 25.03.2022 proposing an addition of Rs.3,01,65,101/- to his returned income on account of unexplained cash deposits. Vide this notice, the petitioner – assessee was requested to furnish his response on or before 26.03.2022, to which, the assessee – petitioner, vide his submission dated 26.03.2022 requested for further adjournment upto 30.03.2022. 6.5 It was further submitted that the request of the assessee – petitioner for adjournment was acceded to and in the interest of natural justice and in view of time barring limitations, the assessee was granted adjournment upto 02:00 PM of 28.03.2022 vide letter issued to the assessee on 26.03.2022 by the FAO which specifically mentioned that it being the final opportunity being granted to the assessee, failing which the case of the assessee would be completed on the basis of information available on record. 6.6 It was further submitted that, the assessee, on due date of submission i.e. on 28.03.2022, requested for another adjournment upto 29.03.2022. Subsequently, on the basis of records available and on basis of facts of the case, the re-opening assessment proceedings were finalized by the FAO on 29.03.2022 making an addition of Rs.3,01,65,010/- to the returned income of the assessee on account of unexplained cash deposits u/s.69A of the Act. 6.7 In view of this Mr.Patel, learned Senior Standing Counsel submitted that ample opportunity was given to the petitioner and therefore, the petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. 7 Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the material on record, it emerges that certain facts are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had requested for an adjournment as well as an opportunity to comply with the principles of natural justice. 7 Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the material on record, it emerges that certain facts are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had requested for an adjournment as well as an opportunity to comply with the principles of natural justice. It is also not in dispute that there was a specific request to provide video conferencing to the petitioner which was not acceded to. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of personal hearing through video conferencing. In view of the same, there is a clear cut breach of principles of natural justice. 7.1 It is a fundamental proposition of law that the other side should be heard before any order is passed. The maxim of Audi Alteram Partem is broad enough to include the rule against bias since a fair hearing is must for it to be unbiased hearing. The essential ingredients of fair hearing is that a person should be served with a proper notice and should be given a proper right to defend his case. 8 In the instant case, despite the request being made by the petitioner for personal hearing through video conferencing, the same was not acceded to. In view of the same, the impugned Assessment Order issued under Sec.143(3) read with Sec. 144B of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 and Demand Notice issued under Sec.156 of the Act, both dated 29.03.2022 for the Assessment Year 2013-14, are not tenable and hence required to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Faceless Assessment Authority to comply with the SOP as envisaged by SOP dated 3.8.2022 and pass a fresh order after following the due procedure of law. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no orders as to costs.