Reassessment limitation under the amended regime upheld as timely, while Income Declaration Scheme payment evidence was remanded for verification.

Under the substituted reassessment regime, notices originally issued under the old procedure were to be tested against the amended limitation framework, including the exclusions recognised by the Supreme Court. On the facts, the section 148A(d) order and fresh section 148 notice were issued within the permitted time after the assessee's reply, so the challenge to reopening failed. On the Income Declaration Scheme issue, the assessee claimed that tax had been paid in substance, though across two PAN numbers; because the record had not fully verified that position, the addition was restored to the Assessing Officer for factual examination.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notice issued for reassessment under the amended reassessment regime was barred by limitation. (ii) Whether the addition linked to the Income Declaration Scheme disclosure was sustainable or required verification of the tax payment made under different PAN numbers.

Issue (i): Whether the notice issued for reassessment under the amended reassessment regime was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The relevant notices were issued first under the unamended regime on 30.06.2021, followed by the information letter under the amended procedure, the assessee's reply on 15.06.2022, and the order under section 148A(d) with the fresh notice under section 148 on 29.07.2022. The governing principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the reassessment litigation were applied to hold that notices issued under the old regime during the relevant period are to be treated in accordance with the amended framework, and that the surviving time for completion of reassessment proceedings is to be computed with reference to the exclusions recognised in that decision. On the facts, the order under section 148A(d) and the consequent notice under section 148 were issued within the time permitted after the assessee's reply.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice was held to be valid and the challenge to initiation of reassessment was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition linked to the Income Declaration Scheme disclosure was sustainable or required verification of the tax payment made under different PAN numbers.

Analysis: The assessee's case was that the tax liability under the declaration had in substance been discharged, but the payments were split across two PAN numbers. The record indicated that the claim had not been fully examined by the lower authority. Since the correctness of the payment position was material to entitlement under the Scheme, the matter required factual verification before a final conclusion could be reached on the addition.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification, and the assessee's ground was allowed for statistical purposes.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the reassessment notice failed, while the merits issue relating to the Scheme payment was sent back for verification, resulting in only partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: In reassessment cases governed by the substituted regime, the validity of the fresh notice depends on compliance with the amended limitation framework and the legally recognised exclusions, while a merits issue dependent on factual payment verification may be remanded when the record is incomplete.

---