2023 (8) TMI 1427 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of reassessment order u/s 148A(Ad) - petitioner is not satisfied with the reasoning and finding of the assessing officer. There is a difference between non-consideration of the objection of petitioner/assessee and consideration of objection according to the petitioner is not being satisfactory - HELD THAT - As in this case assessing officer has passed the impugned order by making detailed discussion and by a speaking order based on facts and evidence which cannot be substituted by this Court in exercise of constitutional writ jurisdiction though the same may not be satisfactory according to the petitioner but the same cannot be a ground for interference with the same in a writ proceeding. This Court is well aware of the legal position that any order under Section 148A(d) of the Act is not an appealable order but this writ Court is refusing to entertain this writ petition for the reasons discussed hereinabove and not on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. WP dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on statutory formalities and compliance.

Summary:
The petitioner challenged the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following the issuance of a notice under Section 148A(b), consideration of response, and an opportunity for a personal hearing. The High Court noted that the Assessing Officer had observed all statutory formalities and obligations required by law. The petitioner's dissatisfaction with the reasoning and findings of the assessing officer did not warrant interference in a writ proceeding. The Court emphasized that a detailed and speaking order based on facts and evidence, even if unsatisfactory to the petitioner, cannot be substituted by the Court in a writ jurisdiction.

The Court acknowledged that an order under Section 148A(d) is not appealable, but refused to entertain the writ petition not due to the availability of alternative remedies but because the assessing officer had complied with all necessary procedures and there was no procedural irregularity. Ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed as the Court found no grounds for interference with the impugned order.