The assessment of the petitioner was completed under section 143(3) of the Act . In the course of assessment proceedings  specific question was raised as regards taxability of the subsidy and provision  for  expenses   . After considering the reply the Assessing Officer has accepted the contention of the petitioner  and partly disallowed the provision for  expenses  . Against the order of the Assessing Officer the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the CIT ( A) which is pending for disposal . After the expiry of four years the Assessing Officer issued the notice for reassessment and in the recorded reasons the Assessing Officer proposed to make addition as regards the subsidy and provision for expenses  . The petitioner has filed detailed reply objecting to proposed reassessment , however the assessing Officer rejected the  objection without discussing any of the contention of the petitioner .  In the rejection order the Assessing Officer quoted 68 case laws . On writ allowing the petition the Court held that,  it is not necessary that the assessment order should contain reference or discussion in the assessment order. Court also observed that the  order of disposal of objections in to 21 pages and referring 68 case laws without referring the issue under consideration  the  Faceless Assessing Officer has only wasted his time in writing unsustainable order on objections . The order was quashed .  ( WP(L) No 6861 of 2022 dt 9 -3 -2022 ) (AY. 2015 -16 )