The reassessment notice was issued on the basis of a complaint received from one of the partners of the assessee firm, alleging that the firm had understated its actual business receipts with an intent to defraud the Revenue. Based on the information received and the replies furnished by the assessee, the AO passed the reassessment order, making additions to the income of the assessee.

The assessee challenged the reassessment proceedings on the ground that they were based on third-party information, namely the complaint, and that no opportunity of cross-examination of the complainant had been granted.

The Court noted that the AO had not recorded any statement of the complainant or any other witness, nor was the reassessment order passed solely on the basis of the complaint. Instead, the Assessing Officer had examined the documentary material evidencing the firm’s transactions, all of which had been made available to the assessee. The assessee was also afforded an adequate opportunity to explain and substantiate how the alleged undisclosed sales were accounted for in the books of account. The Court held that, sitting in writ jurisdiction, it could not undertake an appreciation or analysis of factual material and documentary evidence. Accordingly, no jurisdictional error was found in the reassessment proceedings. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the assessee to avail the alternate statutory remedy by way of appeal.SLP of assessee dismissed.  (AY.2016-17, 2017-18)