The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the respondent on 27.12.2019 in respect of the amount received by the petitioner post demonetization i.e., between 09.11.2016 and 31.12.2016. the petitioner has prima facie demonstrated that the assessment proceeding has resulted in distorted conclusion on facts that amount collected by the petitioner during the period was huge and remained unexplained by the petitioner and therefore same was liable to be treated as unaccounted money in the hands of the petitioner under S. 69A of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order making the petitioner liable to tax at the maximum marginal rate of tax by invoking S. 115BBE of the Act . Court held that  while E-Assessment without human interaction is laudable, such proceedings can lead to erroneous assessment if officers are not able to understand the transactions and accounts of an assessee without a personal hearing. Assessment proceeding under the changed scenario would require proper determination of facts by proper exchange and flow of correspondence between the assessee and the AO. The AO should at least call for an explanation in writing before proceeding to conclude that the amount collected by the assessee was unusual. Also, since the assessment proceedings no longer involve human interaction and is based on records alone, the assessment proceeding should have commenced much earlier so that before passing assessment order, the AO could have come to a definite conclusion on facts after fully understanding the nature of business of the assessee. AO is directed to dispose the matter with in sixty days of receipt of the order. ( W.P.No.1732 of 2020 and W.M.P.Nos.2006 & 2007 of 2020, dt.  04.02.2020) (AY. 2017 -18)