Speaking order on reopening objections is mandatory before reassessment; failure to decide them vitiates jurisdiction.

Reassessment initiated under section 148 was held invalid where the Assessing Officer supplied the recorded reasons but failed to dispose of the assessee's objections by a speaking order before completing the reassessment. The controlling rule applied was that objections to reopening must be decided first, and only then can reassessment proceed. That omission was treated as a jurisdictional defect going to the root of the matter, so the reassessment could not be sustained and was void ab initio.

---

---

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 were valid when the Assessing Officer did not dispose of the assessee's objections by a speaking order before completing the reassessment.

Analysis: The reassessment was founded on information received from another authority and the assessee objected to the reopening after seeking the recorded reasons and supporting material. The objections were not disposed of by any separate order before the reassessment was completed. The controlling rule applied was that, once reasons for reopening are supplied and objections are raised, the Assessing Officer must decide those objections by a speaking order before proceeding further. Failure to do so is a substantive defect going to the root of jurisdiction and the reassessment cannot be sustained.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were invalid and void ab initio, and the challenge to reopening succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: An Assessing Officer must dispose of objections to reopening under section 148 by a speaking order before finalising reassessment; non-compliance vitiates the reassessment for want of valid jurisdiction.

---