Invalid transfer pricing reference after assessment closure defeats reassessment jurisdiction and quashes reopening.

Reopening under the income-tax reassessment provisions was treated as invalid because the Transfer Pricing Officer reference was made after assessment proceedings had ended and no notice under section 143(2) was issued within limitation. The scheme governing arm's length price determination applies only during pending assessment proceedings, so a reference under section 92CA(1) made after the proceedings lapsed was void. As the reassessment was founded on that void reference, it could not supply the required reason to believe under section 147. The notice under section 148 was therefore without jurisdiction and the reassessment was quashed in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reopening of assessment under sections 147 and 148 was valid when the reference made to the Transfer Pricing Officer under section 92CA was outside pending assessment proceedings and no notice under section 143(2) had been issued within limitation.

Analysis: The return had been processed and no notice under section 143(2) was issued within the statutory period, so the assessment proceedings for the relevant year had come to an end. The scheme of sections 92 to 92F permits determination of arm's length price only in the course of assessment proceedings, and a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer under section 92CA(1) presupposes a pending assessment. Since the reference was made after the proceedings had terminated, it was invalid and the order passed on that reference was a nullity. A reassessment founded on such a void order could not satisfy the statutory requirement of reason to believe under section 147.

Conclusion: The reopening was invalid, the notice under section 148 lacked jurisdiction, and the reassessment order was quashed in favour of the assessee.

---