Failure to Consider Evidence of Filed Returns Renders Reassessment Orders Based on Non-Filing Arbitrary and Void.

The Petitioner challenged an order dated June 20, 2025, passed under Section 148A(d) [erroneously cited as 148A(3) in the judgment] and a consequential notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2021-22.

The Revenue initially issued a notice under Section 148A(b) [erroneously cited as 148A(1)] on the ground that the Petitioner was a "Non-Filer" for the relevant year.

On March 28, 2025, the Petitioner submitted a detailed reply providing particulars of the Income Tax Return already filed and requested the proceedings be dropped.

Despite extracting the reply verbatim in the impugned order, the Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the contentions and proceeded with the reopening.

Whether the impugned order under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act was passed with proper application of mind and consideration of the Petitioner's reply.

Whether an order lacking reasoned findings to connect the facts to the conclusion can withstand judicial scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The court applied the statutory requirements of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates the Assessing Officer to consider the reply of the assessee before deciding to issue a notice for reassessment.

The court further relied on the fundamental principle of Administrative Law that "reasons are live links between the proposition and the conclusion," asserting that an order lacking such reasons is a product of non-application of mind.

The Court observed that while the AO included the Petitioner’s reply in the 11-page order, there was no evidence of actual consideration or "bestowed consideration" to the arguments raised.

The AO reached an "abrupt conclusion" to reopen the case without explaining how the Petitioner could still be classified as a "Non-Filer" when evidence of the filed return had been brought on record.

The Court found that simply paraphrasing the notice and extracting the reply does not constitute a reasoned order.

The disconnect between the facts (the Petitioner's evidence of filing) and the conclusion (treating him as a non-filer) demonstrated a total non-application of mind, rendering the order arbitrary and legally unsustainable under Article 226.

The Court set aside the order dated June 20, 2025, and the consequential notice under Section 148.

The Assessing Officer was directed to revisit the matter and pass a fresh, reasoned order in accordance with law after properly considering the Petitioner's reply.

The writ petition (WPO/65/2026) was disposed of with no costs.