Time-barred reassessment notice failed where reopening beyond four years lacked proper statutory satisfaction and valid issuance.

A reassessment notice issued beyond four years was invalid because the statutory conditions for reopening were not strictly met. The record showed the reopening proceeded on an incorrect assumption that the assessee was the sole owner of the property, whereas the sale deed reflected co-ownership; the failure to base reopening on accurate material facts undermined the jurisdictional basis for section 148 action. The notice was also treated as issued only upon later service, which fell beyond the limitation period. On these facts, the notice was time-barred and without legal force, and the reassessment proceedings could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid in law when the reopening was beyond four years and the notice was held to have been issued beyond limitation.

Analysis: The assessment was reopened for a year beyond four years from the relevant assessment year. In such a case, the statutory conditions for reopening must be strictly satisfied, including the requirement that the Assessing Officer must be satisfied that income has escaped assessment and that there was failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The record showed that the reopening proceeded on an incorrect understanding that the assessee was the sole owner of the property, whereas the sale deed indicated co-ownership. The order also showed that mere signing of the notice could not be equated with issuance of notice, and the notice was treated as having been issued only when it was served much later, beyond the limitation date. On that basis, the notice was held to be time-barred and without legal force.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice was invalid and time-barred, and the reassessment proceedings could not be sustained.

---