Speaking reassessment orders must answer objections on remand; a mere restatement of the proposal is invalid.

A reassessment order was held unsustainable where, after a remand requiring reconsideration on the factual record and a speaking order, the assessing authority merely recorded the assessee's submissions and confirmed the proposal without dealing with the objections or giving reasoned findings. The High Court noted that such an order fails the requirement of reasoned adjudication and cannot stand. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration, and the limitation plea was left open for decision by the authority on remand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment order could be sustained when it recorded the assessee's objections but did not deal with them by reasoned findings.

Analysis: The remand by the appellate Tribunal required the assessing authority to reconsider the matter on the factual record and to pass a speaking order after giving the assessee an opportunity to support its contentions. The reassessment order merely narrated the submissions and then confirmed the proposal without examining the objections or recording findings on their merits. An order passed in that manner does not satisfy the requirement of reasoned adjudication and is liable to be interfered with.

Conclusion: The reassessment order was unsustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The matter was remitted for reconsideration, and the limitation plea was left open for decision by the authority on remand.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a remand directs reconsideration with a mandate to deal with the objections, an assessment order that merely reiterates the proposal without answering those objections is invalid for want of a speaking determination.

---