Pursuant to searches conducted in October 2018, assessments for AYs 2013-14 to 2019-20 were completed in June 2021 making substantial additions based on seized digital materials and statements. The Single Judge entertained writ petitions and interfered, inter alia, on the ground of violation of natural justice and non-compliance with S. 65B of the Evidence Act in respect of electronic evidence. On appeal by the Revenue, the High Court held that though exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy have been recognised in  CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2013) 217 Taxman 143 /  357 ITR 357/ 261 CTR  113 (SC)   even in cases alleging breach of natural justice, exercise of writ jurisdiction remains discretionary and cannot be invoked routinely to bypass the statutory appeal. Mere non-grant of cross-examination, especially when no specific request was made by the assessees before the AO, cannot justify sidestepping the remedy under s. 246A; the issue can be urged before the appellate authority. Sections 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 and 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 apply only to judicial proceedings before Courts and not to quasi-judicial proceedings under the Income-tax Act; IT authorities and the Tribunal are not bound by technical rules of evidence. Hence, absence of a certificate under s. 65B cannot preclude reliance on electronic records seized from the assessees’ own systems. The CBDT’s Digital Evidence Investigation Manual, 2014 cannot confer statutory force so as to import the Evidence Act into assessment proceedings or override binding Supreme Court precedents. Observing that large-scale unaccounted transactions were unearthed after extensive investigation over nearly three years, the Court held that the Single Judge’s directions virtually micromanaged the assessment process and were unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside; however, the Revenue was directed to furnish copies of the 101 panchnamas within three weeks and the assessees were granted four weeks thereafter to file appeals, with all contentions left open except on the applicability of S.  65B of the Act.  (AY. 2013-14 to 2019-20)