Reassessment barred by finality of original intimation; DVO report could not sustain reopening under the Income-tax Act.

A reassessment based on a District Valuation Officer's report could not be sustained where the original intimation under section 143(1)(a) had already attained finality before section 142-A was inserted. The proviso to section 142(1) operated as a bar on reopening in these facts, so the valuation reference could not lawfully be used as the foundation for reassessment proceedings. The reassessment was therefore set aside, no substantial question of law arose, and the appellate challenge failed on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether reassessment could be sustained on the basis of the District Valuation Officer's report in view of section 142-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the finality attained by the original intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The original assessment had already attained finality before the insertion of section 142-A. The assessment could not be reopened by relying on a valuation reference when the statutory bar arising from the proviso to section 142(1) applied. On these facts, the valuation report could not lawfully form the basis for the reassessment proceedings.

Conclusion: The reassessment was rightly set aside, and the challenge failed. No substantial question of law arose.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed on merits, and the Tribunal's order setting aside the reassessment was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the original assessment has attained finality before the insertion of section 142-A, a Departmental Valuation Officer's report cannot be used to reopen or sustain reassessment proceedings barred by the proviso to section 142(1).

---