Allowing the petition the Court held  that though it was not necessary for the assessee to provide any reason while seeking to be provided an opportunity for cross-examination of the witnesses whose statements were recorded during the search under section 132, the assessee had provided the reasons for which it required to cross-examine the seven witnesses of employees whose statements before the Assistant Commissioner were relied upon as documents and proof for passing the assessment orders in question. The reasons mentioned by the assessee were just and reasonable. To find out the veracity of the statements, the assessee was entitled to cross-examine the witnesses and to file its effective replies. Therefore, it was the bounden duty of the Assistant Commissioner to have provided a personal hearing and an opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses. Nowhere in the correspondence, had the Assistant Commissioner mentioned about the personal hearing and providing opportunity for cross-examination depriving assessees of the legal right which amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. Not affording an opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, made the orders null and void.  That with regard to the admissibility and reliance placed on the electronic evidence of the pen drive and other electronic equipment seized during the search, the contents contained therein, had to be certified in terms of section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 but no such certification was done. Therefore, the orders having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and in non-compliance with section 65B of the 1872 Act, were set aside. The matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. Matter remanded. (AY.2021-22)