Reassessment notice limitation and moratorium challenge fail, but additions on bank statements are remanded for fresh adjudication.

Reassessment notice under section 148 was treated as valid because limitation under section 149 was satisfied by issuance on 28.03.2018; later service on 02.04.2018 did not invalidate it. The moratorium-based challenge under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code also failed, as the moratorium order had been set aside in insolvency appellate proceedings and no prior intimation to the assessing officer was shown. On the quantum issues, additions based on bank-submitted financial statements required further examination, so the merits dispute was restored for de novo adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its case.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment notice under section 148 was barred by limitation because service was beyond the period prescribed under section 149; (ii) Whether the reassessment proceedings and order were void due to moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; (iii) Whether the additions sustained on the basis of bank-submitted financial statements required fresh consideration on merits.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment notice under section 148 was barred by limitation because service was beyond the period prescribed under section 149.

Analysis: The governing test was whether the notice had been issued within the statutory time limit. The record showed that the notice was issued on 28.03.2018 within the permissible period, and the later service on 02.04.2018 did not invalidate the notice. The limitation provision was read as regulating issuance, not service, and the cited contrary authority was found inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice was held to be within limitation and the challenge was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment proceedings and order were void due to moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The moratorium order of the adjudicating authority was later set aside in insolvency appellate proceedings, and the financial creditor's application under section 7 stood dismissed. In any event, the assessee failed to show that the assessing officer had prior intimation of the moratorium before passing the reassessment order.

Conclusion: The challenge based on moratorium was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the additions sustained on the basis of bank-submitted financial statements required fresh consideration on merits.

Analysis: The additions arose from comparative financial statements and the assessee's non-compliance during reassessment. Since the matter required fuller examination and proper substantiation, the dispute on quantum was restored for fresh adjudication after giving opportunity to the assessee.

Conclusion: The merits issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was not set aside in entirety; the legal challenges to reopening and moratorium failed, while the quantum dispute was sent back for fresh decision, resulting in only partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: For section 149, the relevant requirement is issuance of the reassessment notice within the prescribed time, and a later service of that notice does not by itself render the reassessment invalid; a moratorium-based challenge also fails where the proceedings were not shown to have been brought to the assessing officer's notice and the underlying insolvency order had been set aside.

---