Writ is not a substitute for Participation in Statutory Proceedings

The Delhi High Court in TMEN Systems Private Limited v. ACIT dealt with a challenge to reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 of the Income-tax Act for AY 2020–21. The petitioner argued that the notice proposing reassessment was vague and did not provide adequate information to explain the alleged escapement of income. However, the Court noted that the petitioner had approached the writ court nearly one and a half years after the reassessment order was passed. During this period, the Assessing Officer had already issued a notice under Section 142(1) calling for further information. Considering these circumstances, the Court held that the petitioner should participate in the assessment proceedings and raise all factual and legal objections before the Assessing Officer. The writ petition was therefore disposed of without interfering with the reassessment proceedings. The petitioner subsequently approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition, but the Court dismissed the petition on 9 March 2026, holding that no grounds existed for interference under Article 136. The decision underscores judicial reluctance to interfere in tax reassessment proceedings when statutory remedies are available and when the assessee has delayed approaching the Court.