Reassessment reopening requires valid service, relevant material, and independent belief by the assessing officer before notice issuance.

Service of a section 148 notice for reassessment must be effected in the manner prescribed by law, and affixation is valid only after reasonable and diligent attempts at personal service; on the facts, repeated attempts at the assessee's known address supported valid service. Reopening is also justified where the assessing officer has relevant material, including third-party information and recorded reasons, to form a bona fide belief that income has escaped assessment. A challenge that the officer acted at another's dictate fails unless surrender of independent judgment is shown; inter-departmental communication alone is insufficient. The reassessment challenge was rejected in entirety.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notices under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were validly served on the assessee so as to permit reopening of the assessment; (ii) Whether the Income-tax Officer had sufficient material to form the requisite belief for reopening the assessment; (iii) Whether the reopening was vitiated on the ground that the Income-tax Officer acted at the dictate of others.

Issue (i): Whether the notices under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were validly served on the assessee so as to permit reopening of the assessment.

Analysis: Service of notice under section 148 is mandatory and must comply with the mode of service prescribed by section 282 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with the principles underlying Order 5, Rules 17 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The relevant test is whether reasonable and diligent attempts were made to effect personal service before resorting to affixation. On the facts, attempts were made at the address supplied to the department, the assessee had himself used that address in communications and returns, and the process server's reports showed repeated personal attempts before affixation.

Conclusion: The notices were validly served. This ground failed against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Income-tax Officer had sufficient material to form the requisite belief for reopening the assessment.

Analysis: Reopening could be founded on information showing that the assessee had facilitated large monetary transactions through another person and had not fully and truly disclosed material facts necessary for assessment. The recorded reasons referred to information from another Income-tax Officer and the bank manager's deposition, which constituted relevant material for the formation of belief that income had escaped assessment.

Conclusion: The Income-tax Officer had material to initiate reopening. This ground failed against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the reopening was vitiated on the ground that the Income-tax Officer acted at the dictate of others.

Analysis: Even if earlier correspondence suggested a different view, the decisive question was whether the Income-tax Officer had surrendered his own judgment or discretion. The materials did not establish abandonment of independent decision-making, and the existence of outside information or inter-departmental communication did not by itself invalidate the reopening.

Conclusion: The allegation of acting at the behest of others was not made out. This ground failed against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the reopening was rejected in entirety, and the writ application was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: For reopening an assessment, the statutory notice must be served in the manner required by law after reasonable and diligent attempts at personal service, and reopening is valid where the assessing authority possesses relevant material and exercises its own independent judgment to believe that income has escaped assessment.

---