Reopening of assessment requires a valid basis: a filed return cannot be ignored, and alternative remedy must be immediate.

Article 226(3) was treated as requiring an immediate and direct remedy for the injury complained of; a remote challenge to any future assessment order or a civil suit was not regarded as an adequate alternative where the grievance was against reopening under section 148. The commentary further states that a filed, signed and verified return, even if incomplete or not fully correct, remains a return in law unless it is so defective as to be non-existent; in that situation the Income-tax Officer must proceed under section 143 and complete the assessment, and cannot ignore the return and invoke section 148 merely because particulars were omitted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition had abated under article 226(3) of the Constitution as substituted by the Forty-Second Amendment, on the footing that another remedy was available. (ii) Whether the Income-tax Officer could ignore the returns already filed by the assessee and issue notices under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without completing the assessment.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition had abated under article 226(3) of the Constitution as substituted by the Forty-Second Amendment, on the footing that another remedy was available.

Analysis: The remedy contemplated by article 226(3) must be an immediate remedy for redress of the injury complained of, not a remote or consequential remedy. The grievance was against the reopening of the assessment by issuance of notices under section 148, and the Income-tax Act did not provide a direct remedy against that action. The possibility of challenging any future assessment order in appeal, or of filing a civil suit, was not treated as an adequate alternative remedy for this purpose.

Conclusion: The writ petition had not abated.

Issue (ii): Whether the Income-tax Officer could ignore the returns already filed by the assessee and issue notices under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without completing the assessment.

Analysis: A return that is incomplete or not fully in conformity with section 139 may be invalid in the sense that it is not correct and complete, but it does not cease to be a return unless it is so defective that it cannot be treated as a return in law, such as an unsigned or blank return. Where a return has been filed, signed and verified, the Income-tax Officer must proceed under section 143 and complete the assessment. He cannot treat such a return as non-existent and invoke section 148 merely because certain particulars were omitted. On the facts, the assessee's returns were filed and acted upon, and the reassessment notices were issued without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The notices under section 148 were jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the rule was made absolute, and the reassessment notices and all proceedings based on them were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A filed, signed and verified return that is merely incomplete or not fully correct must be dealt with under section 143, and cannot be ignored as non-existent so as to justify reassessment notice under section 148 unless the document is not a return in law at all.

---