Writ interference in reassessment proceedings was refused where objections were considered, merits were factual, and faceless issuance defect was technical.

An objection under Section 148A(b) was treated as having been considered, even though the assessing officer reached a different conclusion on the materials; the challenge was therefore directed mainly at the merits of that factual appreciation, which was not suited to writ interference. The order under Section 148A(d) was also not treated as a final determination, because the reassessment process under Section 147 was still ongoing and the assessee could raise all contentions in the subsequent proceedings. The complaint that the notice was issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer rather than through faceless mode was held to be hyper-technical, as the substance of the notice was unaffected and later proceedings would follow the faceless assessment procedure.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, warranted interference in writ jurisdiction on the grounds of alleged improper consideration of objections and absence of faceless issuance.

Analysis: The objection under Section 148A(b) was found to have been considered, though the assessing officer reached a different conclusion on the materials. The challenge was directed essentially against the merits of the order, which involved factual appreciation beyond the scope of writ interference. The order under Section 148A(d) was also treated as not being the final determination, since the reassessment process under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was yet to be completed, and the assessee was left free to raise all contentions in the ensuing proceedings. The objection regarding issuance of notice by the jurisdictional assessing officer instead of faceless mode was held to be hyper-technical, as the substance of the notice was not affected and the subsequent proceedings were to follow the faceless assessment procedure.

Conclusion: No interference was called for with the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the writ petition failed.

---