Assessment Order passed without granting requested personal hearing through video conferencing violates Section 144B.

The petitioner, an individual assessee, filed returns for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19.

On 07.02.2026, the respondent issued a show-cause notice (SCN) proposing a variation in income.

The petitioner requested an adjournment and subsequently received a notice under Section 142(1) scheduling a hearing for 17.02.2026.

On 16.02.2026, the petitioner filed a formal reply and specifically requested a personal hearing through virtual mode (video conferencing).

Despite this request, the respondents passed a final Assessment Order on 27.02.2026 under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, raising a demand of Rs. 18,53,54,590/- without granting the requested video conference.

Whether the Assessment Order passed without granting a requested personal hearing via video conferencing constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice and the mandatory provisions of Section 144B of the Act.

The court applied the Faceless Assessment Scheme as codified in Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Specifically, Section 144B(6)(vii) and (viii) mandate that where a variation is proposed in a draft assessment order, the assessee must be given an opportunity to show cause, and upon request, the respondent is obligated to provide a personal hearing through video conferencing or video telephony.

Failure to adhere to these procedural safeguards amounts to a gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

The court observed that the factual record clearly indicated the petitioner’s specific request for a video conference made on 16.02.2026.

The respondents failed to counter this fact and admitted that no such hearing was provided.

The court reasoned that since Section 144B(6) provides a statutory right to a personal hearing when a variation is proposed, the respondents acted de hors (outside) the law by finalizing the assessment with a pre-determined approach without heard the petitioner.

The non-compliance with the faceless assessment procedure rendered the resulting order legally unsustainable.

The matter was remanded to the respondent authorities with a direction to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner an opportunity to file a reply and conducting a personal hearing through video conferencing.

The court ordered the exercise to be completed within 12 weeks of receipt of the order.