IMPORTANT POINT
The re-assessment order under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is an appealable order, and the appellant should avail the alternate remedy before the appellate authority.

JUDGMENT :

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.

1. The unsuccessful writ petitioner is before us by way of this appeal challenging the order dated 26th July, 2023 by which the writ petition in WPO 1341 of 2023 was dismissed. The appellant had challenged the re-assessment order passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 31st May, 2023 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The learned Single Bench after noting the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the appellant/ writ petitioner and also taking note of the decision relied on in the case of Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2018) 99 Taxmann.com 409 (Del), pointed out the distinguishing features in the said decision and ultimately held that a writ Court cannot act as an assessing officer or an appellate authority to scrutinize the facts and findings based on the evidence made by the assessing officer in the final assessment order which is an appealable order.

2. Mr. Pranit Bag, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has elaborately referred to the factual details and has pointed out that error has crept in commencing from the stage of issuance of notice under Section 148A (b) of the Act and even thereafter, while passing the re-assessment order there has been violation of principle of natural justice in as much as the elaborate reply given by the assessee to the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act as well as the show-cause notice dated 29.05.2023 had not been considered and brushed aside in a single line. It is submitted that in the response to the show-cause notice, the assessee has requested for cross-examination of the parties whose statements were the basis for the reopening of the assessment, to provide the entire materials and report of the enquiry and also provide the copies of the reasons recorded before issue of notice under Section 148 dated 21.04.2021 that is before amendment made by the Finance Act, 2021. It is submitted that none of these were complied with by the assessing officer and the re-assessment has been completed by order dated 31.05.2023 in a cryptic manner and therefore, the same calls for interference. The learned Advocate has also referred to the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 01.09.2016 and submitted that all the issues had been considered after the documents placed by the assessee were scrutinized by the assessing officer and there was no justification for reopening the assessment. In support of his contention the learned Advocate placed reliance on the decision in Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. (Supra) and the decision of this Court in Dinesh Kumar Goyal Versus Union of India & Ors., (2023) 453 ITR 535 (Cal) and Krishna Tissues Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India & Ors., MAT 648 of 2023 dated 28.04.2023.

3. Mr. Aryak Dutt, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent department submitted that the learned Single Bench rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternate remedy and the issues which are raised by the assessee in the writ petition as well as in this appeal are all factual matters which can be agitated only before the appellate authority and a fact finding exercise will not be permitted by this Court in a writ proceedings.

4. We have elaborately heard the learned Advocates for the parties and carefully considered the materials placed on record. The appellant did not question the initiation of the reopening of the assessment by issue of notice under Section 148A (b) of the Act nor the appellant challenged the order passed under Section 148(d) of the Act. Therefore, at this distance of time, the appellant is precluded from questioning the correctness of the order passed under Section 148A (d) of the Act. After the said order, the re-assessment proceedings have commenced and notice under Section 148 has been issued. The assessee has participated in the proceedings, submitted their reply and the assessing officer has cons