Accepted return cannot be treated as non est; reassessment based only on wrong assessing officer invalid.

Reassessment notices based solely on the assessee having filed returns before the regular Assessing Officer, rather than the officer to whom jurisdiction was transferred after search, were held unsustainable. The Court noted that the assessee was not clearly informed of the jurisdictional , the returns had been accepted by the Department, and tax had been taken on them; they could not later be treated as non est merely for being filed before the wrong forum. In the absence of any independent ground of escapement, reopening under section 147 failed and the notices were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether notices issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were valid when the sole recorded basis for reopening was that the assessee had filed returns before the ordinary Assessing Officer instead of the officer to whom jurisdiction had been transferred after search.

Analysis: The assessee had filed returns before his regular assessing officer, and those returns were accepted under section 143(1) or assessed under section 143(3), as the case may be. The Department relied on a post-search transfer of jurisdiction under section 120 and contended that the returns filed before the ordinary officer were invalid. The Court held that the assessee had not been clearly informed of the change in jurisdiction, that the ordinary assessing officer could have rejected or transferred the returns, and that the Department, having accepted the returns and tax thereon, could not later treat those returns as non est merely on the ground of wrong forum. Reopening under section 147 was sought solely on that basis, without any other independent ground of escapement.

Conclusion: The reassessment notices were not sustainable and were quashed. The sole ground for reopening failed, and the challenge succeeded in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A return accepted by the Department cannot subsequently be treated as non est, and reassessment cannot be founded solely on the premise that the return was filed before the wrong assessing officer, where the assessee was not shown to have been duly informed of the change in jurisdiction.

---