Speaking order on reopening objections is mandatory before reassessment can validly proceed

Reassessment proceedings are invalid where the Assessing Officer proceeds after reopening without first disposing of the assessee's objections by a separate speaking order. The Tribunal noted that a communication merely seeking an explanation for cash deposits did not address the detailed objections against reopening and therefore did not satisfy the mandatory procedure. Non-compliance with this requirement was treated as more than a procedural irregularity because it affects the validity of the reassessment and the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction to continue with the assessment.

---

---

Issues: Whether reassessment was vitiated because the Assessing Officer did not dispose of the assessee's objections to reopening by a separate speaking order before completing the assessment.

Analysis: The reopening challenge turned on the mandatory procedure governing objections to notice under section 148. The Tribunal found that the communication relied upon by the Revenue did not actually decide the objections; it merely called for an explanation regarding cash deposits and did not deal with the assessee's detailed grounds against reopening. Applying the settled requirement that objections must be disposed of by a speaking order before proceeding with assessment, the Tribunal held that non-compliance is not a mere procedural lapse but one that affects the validity of the reassessment and the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction to continue.

Conclusion: The reassessment was invalid for failure to pass a speaking order disposing of objections to reopening, and the assessee succeeded on the issue.

---