Income Tax | Mere Disagreement On Facts With Assessing Officer No Ground to Invoke Writ Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked merely because a taxpayer disputes the correctness of facts or the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

A division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar observed,

“A challenge to notice or proceedings can be considered normally, in case where the notice and proceedings are without jurisdiction. Simply because the petitioner thinks that the proceedings are not correct on facts and the material available with the Assessing Officer does not tally with the correct facts, the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked.”

The Court made the observation while dismissing a writ petition challenging a reassessment notice dated December 15, 2025 and the proceedings initiated pursuant to it.

The Petitioner-taxpayer contended that despite directions issued in an earlier round of litigation, the Assessing Officer failed to consider his reply and proceeded by referring the matter for reassessment under Section 148 through a notice issued under Section 144B of the Act.

It was argued that the credit entries reflected in the Petitioner's books were incorrectly appreciated by the Assessing Officer and that the proceedings deserved to be quashed at the threshold.

The Revenue opposed the petition, submitting that the issues raised by the Petitioner were factual in nature and did not go to the root of jurisdiction.

Rejecting the challenge, the High Court held that the Income Tax Act provides a sufficient mechanism to ensure redressal of the petitioner's grievance if the Assessing Officer's order is in any manner contrary to facts or material.

Finding no jurisdictional infirmity in the reassessment proceedings, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

For Petitioner: Advocates Uday Bedi (VC) with Shivani Aggarwal

For Respondent: Advocate Shlok Chandra, SSC with Naincy Jain, JSC for Respondents