Validity of sanction and reopening: mechanical sanction and sole reliance on a valuation opinion do not justify reassessment.

Reopening assessments requires recorded reasons to believe and a valid sanction reflecting the sanctioning authority's application of mind; a mere mechanical signature without recorded satisfaction invalidates sanction. Reliance primarily on a district valuer's (DVO) valuation report, being an opinion, does not by itself constitute independent information justifying reassessment absent separate material showing non disclosure or failure to disclose material facts. Where both mechanical sanction and sole reliance on a valuation report are alleged, both defects undermine the assumption of jurisdiction and the belief that income escaped assessment, rendering the reassessment order legally unsustainable in the circumstances described.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment framed under section 147/148 read with section 151(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid when the sanctioning authority merely signed the proposal without recording satisfaction, and whether reopening based primarily on the DVO valuation report constituted valid grounds for reassessment.

Analysis: The statutory framework governing reassessment after completion under section 143(3) requires recording of reasons to believe (section 147) and sanction by the competent authority (section 151(2)). The validity of sanction requires objective application of mind by the sanctioning authority; a mechanical signature without recorded satisfaction fails this requirement. Judicial precedent recognises that a district valuer's report is an opinion and, absent independent material demonstrating non-disclosure or failure to disclose material facts, a change of opinion based solely on a valuation report does not constitute information justifying reopening. Where the reopening is contested on both grounds - mechanical sanction and reopening based solely on DVO valuation - both aspects must be examined to determine whether the assumptions of jurisdiction and the belief that income escaped assessment are legally sustainable.

Conclusion: The sanction under section 151(2) was recorded mechanically without application of mind and thus invalid, and reopening based primarily on the DVO valuation report did not furnish proper information under section 147 to justify reassessment. The impugned reassessment order under section 147/143(3) is therefore invalid and the revenue's appeal is dismissed in favour of the assessee.

---