Where the Assessing Officer disallowed purchases on the ground that the supplier had not responded to the notice u/s 133(6), though the supplier had in fact filed a detailed reply confirming the transaction with supporting documents, and further made an addition of unsecured loans by relying on non-existent judicial decisions and without showing any working or issuing a show-cause notice, it was held that the assessment was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The Department fairly admitted that the supplier’s response was not considered and that certain cited judgments were non-existent. The Court observed that quasi-judicial authorities cannot rely blindly on results generated by AI tools without independent verification. Accordingly, the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B, the consequential demand u/s 156, and penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271AAC were quashed and set aside, and the matter remanded to the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh show-cause notice, grant opportunity of hearing, and pass a speaking order. (A.Y. 2023-24) (W.P. (L) No. 24366 of 2025; dt. 6-10-2025)