Reassessment after remand must follow directions and natural justice, or the fresh order is unsustainable

A reassessment made after remand must comply strictly with the appellate and court directions, including disclosure of relied-upon material and a fair opportunity to respond. Where the reassessing authority ignores the remand instructions, does not consider the assessees' replies, and completes the fresh assessment after undue delay, the process is vitiated by breach of natural justice and non-application of mind. The reassessment orders were therefore unsustainable and were set aside, with the matters sent back for fresh consideration after due opportunity to the assessees.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment orders passed after remand were sustainable in law in view of non-compliance with the appellate and court directions, denial of materials to the assessees, and the inordinate delay in completing the fresh assessment.

Analysis: The assessments had earlier been set aside with specific directions to redo the matter afresh. The fresh orders, however, were passed without adhering to those directions and without considering the assessees' replies or furnishing the requested materials needed for an effective defence. The long delay in completing the reassessment further showed failure to implement the earlier directions in their true spirit. On the materials placed, the Court found violation of the principles of natural justice and non-application of mind to the remand orders.

Conclusion: The reassessment orders were unsustainable and were set aside, and the matters were remanded for fresh consideration after affording due opportunity to the assessees.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment made after remand must strictly comply with the appellate and court directions and must be preceded by disclosure of material and a fair opportunity of hearing; failure to do so vitiates the order for breach of natural justice and non-application of mind.

---