Petitioner challenged the show cause notice and draft  assessment passed by the Assessing Officer. The Court held that the omission of sub-section (9) of section 144B was with various new measures for checks and balances having been provided in the procedure prescribed under section 144B. Even otherwise, section 144B being a procedural statute, no right much less substantive right can be said to have been conferred by sub-section (9) of section 144B upon the taxpayer which provided for the proceeding of the assessment being non est if not made in accordance with the procedure laid down under section 144B. The sub-section was for imposing a burden upon the Department rather than conferment of any right upon the assessee and further as noted in the amendment bill it had lead to a large number of litigation on technical grounds due to some procedural difficulty in implementation of faceless assessment. The amendment is valid. The Court also held that the reassessment was initiated with the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 on March 31, 2021 by the Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner. The subsequent notice dated June 30, 2021 under section 143(2) read with section 147 of the Act, issued from the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, therefore, could not be said to suffer from any error of law. All the subsequent proceedings were conducted through the National Faceless Assessment Centre. A further perusal of the communication dated November 22, 2021 issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi indicated that the Assessing Officer was directed to decide the objection raised by the assessee against the reopening of the assessment for the assessment year 2013-14. The order of rejection of the objections filed by the assessee was then passed on December 9, 2021 and was communicated through the National Faceless Assessment Centre. In a faceless assessment procedure set in place with effect from April 1, 2022 by an amendment in section 144B(7), the personal hearing through video conferencing has been made mandatory, in case of the request made by the assessee. The assessee had specifically asked for a grant of opportunity of a personal hearing through video conferencing by communication on the website and the request had been acknowledged by the authorities. There was no good reason for denial of such an opportunity to the assessee. There was a violation of the principles of natural justice and against the procedure set in place for conducting reassessment proceedings. Being deficit in essential procedural compliances, the assessment order dated March 30, 2022 had to be set aside. (AY.2013-14)