Writ interference in reassessment matters is limited where objections are factual, prior scrutiny is unproven, and approval shows application of mind.

A writ challenge to reassessment was not treated as fit for interference where the objections before the tax authority addressed only merits, the disputed basis involved factual matters better examined in reassessment or appeal, and an inadvertent reference to non-filing of the return did not go to the root of initiation. The proposed reopening was also not shown to be barred by prior scrutiny, because the earlier assessment was limited in scope and the record did not establish that the impugned cash receipt or card transactions had already been examined. Approval under Section 151 was sustained because the note referred to the draft order and material on record, showing application of mind.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment proceedings could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction on the ground that the stated basis that no return was filed was erroneous and the notice was otherwise unsupported; (ii) Whether the issues sought to be reopened were already examined in the original scrutiny assessment and whether Section 153C, rather than Section 148 read with Section 148A, applied; (iii) Whether the approval under Section 151 was vitiated for want of application of mind.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment proceedings could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction on the ground that the stated basis that no return was filed was erroneous and the notice was otherwise unsupported.

Analysis: The objections filed to the show-cause notice did not raise the jurisdictional grounds urged in the writ petition and were confined to the merits. The reopening was founded on information received under the risk management framework, and the inadvertent statement regarding non-filing of the return was treated as not going to the root of the initiation. The disputed aspects involved factual matters better examined in the reassessment and appellate stages.

Conclusion: The challenge on this ground was rejected and no interference in writ jurisdiction was warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the issues sought to be reopened were already examined in the original scrutiny assessment and whether Section 153C, rather than Section 148 read with Section 148A, applied.

Analysis: The scrutiny assessment was limited to verification of deductions under Chapter VI-A, and the questionnaire did not cover the alleged cash receipt or credit card transactions. The information about the alleged cash receipt was received after the assessment concluded. The petitioner did not place the assessment-stage material before the Court to establish prior examination. The argument based on Section 153C was not accepted because the reopening was not confined to search-related material and also covered other transactions.

Conclusion: The contention that the reassessment lacked jurisdiction on these grounds was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the approval under Section 151 was vitiated for want of application of mind.

Analysis: The approval note referred to the draft order, the material on record, and the information under the risk management strategy. It was not a bare mechanical endorsement. On the face of the record, the approval disclosed consideration of the relevant material.

Conclusion: The challenge to the approval failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not fit for interference and the reassessment notices were left undisturbed, with liberty to urge available contentions in the reassessment and appellate proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will ordinarily not quash reassessment proceedings where the challenge turns on disputed facts, the objections before the authority are confined to merits, and the record shows that reopening is founded on information and an approval reflecting consideration of the material on record.

---