The assessment order was passed my making addition under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, for alleged illegal gratification relatable to and the amount received in connection with the 2G scam. Court held that the procedures have been set out in the Manual of Office Procedure Volume II issued by the Directorate of Income-tax. Paragraph 3.2.7 of the Manual requires officers to furnish copies of all documents that are referred to in the assessment order and relied upon by the officer to the assessee. Court also held that the direction of the Tribunal was to complete the assessment de novo, implying clearly, application of mind anew to the facts and circumstances of the case. There was abject lack of application of mind to any of the issues raised by the assessee. This bordered on contempt. The order of assessment was not valid. The only question that survived was whether an opportunity should be given once again to the Department to go through the process of assessment and reframe the assessment. An assessment cannot be set aside merely for the asking and simply as a measure of affording multiple innings to the respondents. There were simply no mitigating circumstances that would persuade one to remand the matter yet again. Instead, the blatant disregard of all cannons of law, fairness as well as of the order of the Tribunal, made it clear that this was not a matter where the respondent must be afforded one more innings. The assessment stood annulled. Order cannot be improved upon by way of a counter affidavit or by way of statement relied, Mohinder Singh Gil v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) AIR 1978 SC 851. Court also observed that, unless authorities adher not only just to the latter but also to the spirit of orders passed by the superor authorities discipline  would be impossible to achieve, relied  UOI v. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation Ltd (1992) Suppl (1) SCC 443   (AY.2009-10 to 2011-12)