The assessee challenged an AI-generated order declaring the return defective under s. 139(9), contending that though the order stated that the response was considered, it disclosed no reasons for rejecting the explanation. The Court observed that the impugned order contained only conclusions without reasons and resembled the “inscrutable face of a sphinx”, and that the duty to give reasons is a facet of natural justice which cannot be sacrificed on the ground of automation or system limitations. While noting that minimal reasoning is necessary even in such orders, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition as the assessee had an effective alternate remedy by way of revision under s. 264. Issues relating to alleged non-compliance with s. 44AB would require examination of returns, P&L account and accompanying documents, which could be more appropriately undertaken by the CIT in revisional jurisdiction. Though reliance was placed on the Gujarat High Court decision in Rohtak Panipat Tollway (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. DIT (SCA No. 5727 of 2024  the Court held that this was not an exceptional case warranting bypass of the statutory remedy. Accordingly, the writ petition was not entertained, leaving the assessee to avail the remedy under S.  264, while emphasizing that AI-based systems must evolve to reflect thoughtful consideration and adherence to principles of natural justice. (AY. 2022-23 )