Reopening objections and reason to believe test govern reassessment jurisdiction after remand for fresh assessment.

An assessee who received the recorded reasons for reopening, participated in reassessment, and did not challenge the absence of a separate speaking order on its objections at the appropriate stage could not later revive that procedural grievance after the assessment was set aside under Section 263 and remitted for de novo consideration. In that setting, the matter stood restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, and the earlier objection to the Section 148 notice was no longer available. The reopening challenge was also assessed on the limited jurisdictional test applicable at the notice stage: whether there was reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, not proof of escapement.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee could insist, after the assessment was set aside under Section 263, that the Assessing Officer must first dispose of its objections to the notice under Section 148 by a separate speaking order before making a fresh assessment; and whether the notice issued for reopening was without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The reasons for reopening had been furnished to the assessee, and the assessee was informed that the requirements in GKN Driveshafts had been met. Despite this, no writ remedy was invoked at the stage when the objections could have been pursued. The assessee thereafter participated in the reassessment proceedings and allowed the assessment to be completed. When the assessment was later set aside under Section 263 and the matter was remitted for fresh assessment de novo, the proceeding stood restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh order. In that setting, the assessee could not reopen the earlier grievance that its objections to reopening had not been disposed of by a separate order. The Court also held that, at the stage of issuance of notice under Section 148, the test was only whether there was reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, and not whether escapement was conclusively established.

Conclusion: The contention that the Assessing Officer was bound to dispose of the objections before proceeding further was rejected, and the notice under Section 148 was held to be within jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee receives the recorded reasons for reopening, participates in the reassessment proceedings, and does not challenge the omission to pass a separate order on objections at the appropriate stage, it cannot later insist upon that procedural objection after the matter is remitted for fresh assessment; the validity of reopening depends only on the existence of reason to believe at the time of issuing notice.

---