Parallel reassessment notices are impermissible while earlier proceedings remain pending, and later assessments fail on limitation.
Fresh reassessment notices for the same assessment years cannot be issued while earlier reassessment proceedings are still pending and the statutory period for completing them has not expired. The court applied the principle that a parallel reopening is barred until the first reassessment is concluded in accordance with law. On that basis, subsequent reassessment notices were treated as impermissible, and the annulment of the assessments on limitation grounds was upheld because the later proceedings could not cure the defect in the subsisting reassessment process.
Issues: (i) Whether fresh notices for reopening could be issued while earlier reassessment proceedings were still pending and the statutory time for completing them had not expired; (ii) Whether the annulment of the assessments on the ground of limitation was legally sustainable.
Issue (i): Whether fresh notices for reopening could be issued while earlier reassessment proceedings were still pending and the statutory time for completing them had not expired.
Analysis: The reassessment initiated on the earlier notice was still in progress and had not been completed within the permissible period. The legal position applied was that once reassessment proceedings are already pending, the Assessing Officer cannot commence a parallel or fresh reassessment for the same years by issuing another notice under the reopening provision. The existence of pending proceedings bars a second reopening until the first is concluded in accordance with law.
Conclusion: Fresh notices under the reopening provision were impermissible while the earlier reassessment proceedings remained pending.
Issue (ii): Whether the annulment of the assessments on the ground of limitation was legally sustainable.
Analysis: Since the earlier reassessment proceedings had not been brought to a lawful close and the statutory period for their completion had not run out, the subsequent reassessment notices could not validate the assessments. The Tribunal's view that the later proceedings were barred and could not sustain the assessments was consistent with the governing legal position.
Conclusion: The annulment of the assessments on the ground of limitation was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeals failed because the impugned reassessment notices were issued during subsisting reassessment proceedings, rendering the later assessments unsustainable in law.
Ratio Decidendi: A fresh reassessment notice cannot be issued for the same assessment years while earlier reassessment proceedings are still pending and within the statutory period for completion.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
