Allowing the petition the Court held that despite the Department affording an opportunity to the assessee to make a request for personal hearing by clicking the “Seek Video Conferencing” button available against the notice in the view notices section of the e-proceeding tab, on e-filing portal, no such button was clicked by the assessee within the time specified in the notice. On this context, the time provided to the assessee was adequate enough. The request made by the assessee for personal hearing in the earlier response could not have mandated the Department to give personal hearing to the assessee without the assessee applying for personal hearing in the manner prescribed on the portal. If the assessee had failed to take such opportunity, the Department could not be made responsible therefor. But similar conclusion could not be drawn while considering whether appropriate opportunity of hearing was given to the assessee to respond to the notice, which proposed the variations and wherein the digital signature showed that it was signed in the evening on March 15, 2024, which was a Friday and the assessee was required to respond to it before 11 a.m. of March 19, 2024 giving an inadequate time of one working day to respond. The limitation period would end on March 31, 2025 and there being no urgency, the Assessing Officer had acted in derogation of the Standard Operating Procedure issued by the Commissioner. Therefore, there was violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, the assessee was prevented from appropriately responding to the notice.  That though the Assessing Officer had passed the order under section 143(3) read with section 144B beyond the period of seven days from the date of issuance of notice, there was nothing on record to show that any notice was given to the assessee intimating that the order should not be passed prior to the expiry of the period of seven days. The order passed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2022-23, being in violation of principles of natural justice was vitiated and therefore, set aside. The consequent notice of demand under section 156 and the notices of penalty under sections 272A(1)(d) and 274B were also set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer. The Department was directed to activate the portal for the assessee to submit her response since she had already received the notice and to express her option of personal hearing. In the event of the assessee’s failure to respond within the stipulated time, the Department was given liberty to proceed in accordance with law.(AY.2022-23)