Dismissing the petitions the Court held  that the extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 could not be exercised at the initial stage of issue of notice under section 148 by interrupting the process of the assessing authority for reopening the assessment under section 147. It is trite law that if the facts are in dispute and clouded by some suspicion, they have to be left open for the appropriate competent authority to examine and extraordinary jurisdiction could not be exercised to usurp such discretion of the competent authority from being adjudicated upon. The assessing authority while disposing of the objections against reopening of the assessment under section 147 had examined not only the sauda chitthi of the land in which the assessee had purportedly made investments but also certain admissions and statements made by the assessee during the survey pursuant to the search under section 132 and incidental material. Only upon such critical analysis of the material on record vested jurisdiction was exercised. The order disposing of objections had been passed in consonance with proper guidelines. The entire exercise had been undertaken on account of relevant documents having been seized from the residence of searched party during search and survey proceedings. Even the assessee had admitted in his statement that unaccounted cash had been paid for the purchase of both the plots in question but was not disclosed and that he would reveal after consultation with other partners.. The notice under section 148 had been issued after the period of four years obtaining sanction under section 151(1) from the Principal Commissioner who was the appropriate authority and therefore, was not without jurisdiction. The information received from the Investigation Wing could not be denied and they were prepared after conducting search and seizure operation under section 132, inquiry, recording of the statements and collection of evidence and such material was sufficient to arrive at a conclusion. The sufficiency of the material would be good enough for the authority to assume the jurisdiction for commencement of reassessment proceedings. However, the sufficiency or correctness of the material would not be in the realm of consideration at this stage and the correctness or otherwise of the reasoning recorded for reopening of the assessment would not be in the realm of adjudication by going into the merits of reasoning. If such reasons were not perverse and it was not mere change of opinion but sufficient material or reason to believe there was escapement of income it would suffice for the authorities to proceed to reopen the assessment subject to other prescribed criteria also having been satisfied. Under the Act the assessee had the remedy by way of efficacious redressal mechanism under various provisions and at this stage of proceedings to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction would not be just and proper. (AY. 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14)