Reassessment limitation turns on timely initiation: continuation notices survive, but a first reopening after deemed assessment is time-barred.

Reassessment notices issued for earlier assessment years were treated as a continuation of proceedings that had already been validly initiated within the limitation period, so they were not barred by time and were upheld. By contrast, where an assessment had concluded by deemed assessment and no reopening notice had been issued within the prescribed period, a fresh notice issued much later could not revive the matter and was time-barred. The result was mixed: notices for the earlier years survived, while the notice for the later year was set aside for limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment notices for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 were barred by limitation when earlier notices had already been issued within time and the impugned notices were stated to be in continuation of those proceedings. (ii) Whether the reassessment notice for the assessment year 2010-11 was barred by limitation where the assessment had been completed by deemed assessment and no prior reopening notice had been issued within time.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment notices for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 were barred by limitation when earlier notices had already been issued within time and the impugned notices were stated to be in continuation of those proceedings.

Analysis: The reassessment proceedings for the earlier assessment years had been initiated by notices issued soon after the original assessments, and further notices were also issued in the course of those pending proceedings. On that footing, the later notices challenged in 2019 were treated as a continuation of proceedings that had commenced within the prescribed period. Since the initiation itself was within time, the later notices did not suffer from limitation.

Conclusion: The challenge failed for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10, and the notices were upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment notice for the assessment year 2010-11 was barred by limitation where the assessment had been completed by deemed assessment and no prior reopening notice had been issued within time.

Analysis: For the assessment year 2010-11, the assessment stood completed by operation of law under the deeming provision, and no earlier notice for reopening had been issued within the limitation period. A fresh notice issued only in 2019 could not revive a concluded assessment beyond the statutory time limit. The reassessment notice was therefore outside the permissible period.

Conclusion: The challenge succeeded for the assessment year 2010-11, and the notice was held time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were rejected insofar as they related to the reassessment notices for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10, but the notice for the assessment year 2010-11 was set aside as barred by limitation, leaving the parties with a mixed result.

Ratio Decidendi: Where reassessment proceedings are initiated within the statutory period, later notices issued in continuation of those proceedings are not barred by limitation; however, a first reopening notice issued after a deemed assessment has become final and after expiry of the prescribed period is time-barred.

---