Jurisdictional defect in reassessment notice under section 148 rendered reopening invalid and unsustainable.

Reassessment proceedings were held to be without jurisdiction because the foundational notice under section 148 was issued by an officer at Mumbai, while the assessee fell within the jurisdiction of the Dehradun Assessing Officer under the applicable jurisdictional notification. The notice was returned unserved and was not validly served within the limitation period, and the record also showed no transfer order under section 127 before the Dehradun officer proceeded with the matter. The defect went to jurisdiction and could not be cured by later proceedings or by notices issued under section 142(1). The reassessment orders were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment proceedings were valid in the absence of a valid notice under section 148 issued and served by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

Analysis: The reassessment was founded on notice under section 148 issued by an officer at Mumbai, whereas the assessee fell within the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer at Dehradun under the applicable jurisdictional notification. The notice issued at Mumbai was returned unserved and was not validly served within the limitation period. The record also showed that the case was thereafter handled by the Dehradun officer without a transfer order under section 127. In these circumstances, the foundational requirement for assuming jurisdiction to reopen the assessment was not satisfied. The defect was jurisdictional and could not be cured by subsequent proceedings or by reference to later notices issued under section 142(1).

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction and the assessment orders could not be sustained.

---