/2022 INSC 0231/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2200 OF 2022
Vishal Ashwin Patel           ..Appellant (S)
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax                ..Respondent (S)
Circle 25(3) & Ors.
With 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2201 OF 2022
With 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2202 OF 2022
With 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2203 OF 2022
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
in Writ Petitions Nos. 3209/2019, 3150/2019, 3208/2019
and  3137/2019, by   which  the  Division Bench  of the  High
1

Court   has   dismissed   the   said   writ   petitions   in   which   the
appellants herein – original writ petitioners challenged the
reopening   of   the   assessment/re­assessment   proceedings,
the   original   writ   petitioners   have   preferred   the   present
appeals.
  
2. We   have   heard   Shri   Devendra   Jain,   learned   counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   respective   appellants   and   Shri
Balbir   Singh,   learned   ASG   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
Revenue.   We   have   gone   through   the   respective   orders
passed   by   the   High   Court   dismissing   the   writ   petitions.
Having gone through the orders passed by the High Court
dismissing   the   writ   petitions,   it   can   be   seen   that   the   said
orders are cryptic, non­speaking and non­reasoned orders.
The order dated 11.01.2022 reads as under: ­
“1. We are not inclined to entertain this petition. At the same
time,   the   Assessing   Officer   who   will   be   different   from   the
officer   who   had   pass   the   order   dated   10th   October,   2019
rejecting   the   objections   filed   by   petitioner   for   re­opening
under   Section   148   of   the   Income   Tax   Act,   1961   (the   Act)
shall   permit   petitioner   to   file   further   documents   and   case
laws   if   adviced   and   also   grant   a   personal   hearing   before
passing   the   assessment   order.   The   assessment   order   to   be
passed within 12 weeks from the date this order is uploaded.
Petitioner   shall   be   given   atleast   seven   days   advance   notice
about the date and time of the personal hearing.
2.   The   Assessing   Officer   shall   deal  with  all  the   submissions
made by petitioner including those raised in his objections to
2

the   re­opening   and   pass   detailed   order   in   accordance   with
law. “ 
From the writ petitions produced on record, it appears
that the reopening of the assessment under Section 148 of
the   Income   Tax   Act   has   been   challenged   on   a   number   of
grounds.   None   of   the   grounds   raised   in   the   writ   petitions
has   been  dealt  with   and/or  considered  by  the  High   Court
on   merits.   There   is   no   discussion   at   all   on   any   of   the
grounds raised in the writ petitions. The Division Bench of
the High Court has dismissed the writ petitions in a most
casual manner which is unsustainable. Except stating that
‘we   are   not   inclined   to   entertain   writ   petition’,   nothing
further   has   been   stated   by   the   High   Court   giving   reasons
for the disinclination to entertain the writ petitions. 
2.1 The   manner   in   which   the   High   Court   has   dealt   with   and
disposed   of   the   writ   petitions   without   passing   any
reasoned   order   is   not   appreciated   by   this   Court.   When   a
number   of   issues/grounds   were   raised   in   the   writ
petitions, it was the duty cast upon the court to deal with
the   same   and   thereafter,   to   pass   a   reasoned   order.   When
the   Constitution   confers   on   the   High   Courts   the   power   to
3

give   relief   it   becomes   the   duty   of   the   Courts   to   give   such
relief in appropriate cases and the Courts would be failing
to   perform   their   duty   if   relief   is   refused   without   adequate
reasons.
      
2.2 The High Court in exercise of powers under  Article 226 of
the   Constitution   of   India   was   required   to   have
independently   considered   whether   the   question   of
reopening   of   the   assessment   could   be   raised   in   a   writ
petition and if so, whether it was justified or not. 
2.3 While emphasising the necessity to pass a reasoned order,
in   the   case   of   Central   Board   of   Trustees   Vs.   Indore
Composite   Private   Limited,   (2018)   8   SCC   443,   it   is
observed   and   held   by   this   Court   that   the   courts   need   to
pass   a   reasoned   order   in   every   case   which   must   contain
the narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to
the   lis,   the   issues   arising   in   the   case,   the   submissions
urged by  the parties, the legal principles applicable to the
issues involved and the reasons in support of the findings
on   all   the   issues   arising   in   the   case   and   urged   by   the
learned counsel for the parties in support of its conclusion.
4

It   is   further   observed   in   the   said   decision   that   an   order
bereft of reasoning causes prejudice to the parties because
it deprives them to know the reasons as to why  one party
has won and other has lost. 
2.4 In the recent decision in the case of   Union Public Service
Commission Vs. Bibhu  Prasad Sarangi and Ors., (2021)
4 SCC 516 , while emphasising the reasons to be given by
the   High   Court   while   exercising   powers   under   Article   226
of the Constitution of India, it is observed and held by this
Court   that   the   reasons   constitute   the   soul   of   judicial
decision   and   how   Judges   communicate   in   their   judgment
is a defining characteristic of judicial process since quality
of   justice   brings   legitimacy   to   the   judiciary.   It   is   further
observed   that   though   statistics   of   disposal   of   cases   is
important   of   higher   value   is   the   intrinsic   content   of
judgment. It is further observed that in exercise of powers
under   Article   226   the   courts   require   to   independently
consider the issues involved. 
5

3. Applying   the   law   laid   by   this   Court   in   the   aforesaid
decisions to the facts of the case on hand and the manner
in which the High Court has disposed of the writ petitions,
in   the   interest   of   sobriety,   we   may   only   note   that   the
orders   are   bereft   of   reasoning   as   diverse   grounds   were
urged/raised   by   the   parties   which   ought   to   have   been
examined  by  the High  Court  in  the first place and  a clear
finding   was   required   to   be   recorded   upon   analysing   the
relevant documents. 
4. Since   we   cannot   countenance   the   manner   in   which   the
orders   have   been   passed   by   the   High   Court   which   has
compelled   us   to   remand   the   matter   to   the   High   Court   for
deciding   the   writ   petitions   afresh   on   merits,   we   do   so   in
light of the aforesaid observations. 
5. In   light   of   the   foregoing   discussion,   we   allow   the   present
appeals and  set aside the  impugned  orders passed  by  the
High Court and remand the matters to the Division Bench
of   the   High   Court   for   deciding   the   writ   petitions   afresh   in
accordance   with   law,   keeping   in   view   our   observations
6

made   supra.   We,   however,   make   it   clear   that   we   have
refrained   from   making   any   observation   on   merits   of   the
controversy,   having   formed   an   opinion   to   remand   the
cases   to   the   High   Court   only   for   the   reasons   mentioned
above.   The   High   Court   would,   therefore,   decide   the   writ
petitions,   bearing   in   mind   our   observations   made   above,
strictly in accordance with law. 
With   the   above   directions,   the   present   appeals   are
accordingly allowed and the impugned orders are set aside.
The   matters   are   remanded   to   the   High   Court   as   aforesaid.
No costs.            
…………………………………J.
                  (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
 (B.V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi, 
March 28 th
 2022.
7