Invalid reassessment under Income Tax Act due to lack of notice under Section 143(2). Assessee prevails, appeals disposed.

The High Court held that the reassessment was invalid due to the failure to issue a notice under Section 143(2) to the Assessee when reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the Assessee, leading to the disposal of the appeals. The Court did not address the jurisdictional requirement or justification for reopening the assessments, as the invalidity of the reassessment sufficed for the decision.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdictional requirement for reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Justification of the Assessing Officer (AO) in reopening the assessment for the relevant assessment years.
3. Validity of reassessment for failure to issue notice to the Assessee under Section 143(2) of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The High Court considered the jurisdictional requirement for reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court framed questions regarding the satisfaction of jurisdictional requirements for reopening the assessment, leading to a detailed analysis of whether the conditions were met for initiating reassessment proceedings.

2. The Court examined whether the Assessing Officer was justified in reopening the assessment for the relevant assessment years under Section 147 of the Act. The arguments presented by both parties were considered, and the Court assessed the legality and validity of the AO's decision to reopen the assessments.

3. The issue of failure to issue notice to the Assessee under Section 143(2) of the Act was raised during the proceedings. The Senior Standing Counsel for the Department objected to this issue being raised at that stage. However, citing relevant legal precedents, the Court overruled the objection and considered the issue. The Court relied on various judgments, including those of the Supreme Court and High Courts, to determine the validity of the reassessment due to the failure to issue the required notice.

4. The Court referred to specific legal principles and judgments, such as the observations of the Supreme Court in Saurav Jain v. A.B.P. Design, to support its decision-making process. The Court also highlighted the importance of adherence to procedural requirements and legal principles in conducting reassessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act.

5. Ultimately, the Court held that the reassessment was invalid in law due to the failure to issue the notice under Section 143(2) to the Assessee while reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Act. As a result, the Court ruled in favor of the Assessee and against the Department on this particular issue, leading to the disposal of the appeals based on this finding.

6. Given the invalidation of the reassessment due to the failure to issue the required notice, the Court concluded that there was no need to address the other questions framed earlier regarding the jurisdictional requirement and justification for reopening the assessments. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of based on the Court's findings on the issue of the notice under Section 143(2) and the resulting invalidity of the reassessment proceedings.

---