Mandatory scrutiny notice after reopening return is essential; reassessment without it is invalid.

A return filed in response to a notice under section 148 is treated as a return under section 139 for assessment purposes, so the scrutiny procedure continues to apply in reassessment proceedings. Notice under section 143(2) is therefore a mandatory jurisdictional safeguard before completing reassessment. Where the Assessing Officer omits that notice after the assessee files the return in response to reopening, the reassessment is rendered invalid and unsustainable. In view of conflicting judicial views, the construction favourable to the assessee was adopted.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after a return is filed in response to a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer is mandatorily required to issue notice under section 143(2) before framing reassessment, and whether omission to do so vitiates the reassessment.

Analysis: A return filed pursuant to a notice under section 148 is to be treated as a return furnished under section 139 for the limited purpose of completing the assessment. The procedure for scrutiny therefore continues to govern the reassessment process, and section 143(2) operates as the statutory safeguard to examine the return. Since the assessee filed the return in response to the reopening notice, the absence of notice under section 143(2) deprived the Assessing Officer of valid jurisdiction to complete the reassessment. In view of the conflicting judicial views, the construction favouring the assessee was adopted.

Conclusion: Notice under section 143(2) was mandatory, and the reassessment completed without such notice was invalid and unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A return furnished in response to a notice under section 148 must be treated as a return under section 139 for assessment purposes, and reassessment cannot be validly completed unless notice under section 143(2) is issued.

---