Reassessment validity and mandatory notice requirements undermine reassessments when the substituted procedure and section 143(2) are not followed.

A reassessment notice issued on 01.04.2021 was treated as falling under the substituted reassessment regime then in force, so completion of reassessment without the fresh procedure of enquiry, opportunity to respond, and consideration of the assessee's reply was said to be beyond jurisdiction and bad in law. For the later assessment years, where returns were filed in response to section 148 notices, the absence of notice under section 143(2) was treated as fatal because such notice is mandatory for assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147, and section 292BB does not cure a complete absence of notice. The article states that these jurisdictional defects rendered the reassessments void.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment initiated on a notice issued on 01.04.2021 was governed by the amended reassessment regime and therefore invalid for want of compliance with the substituted procedure. (ii) Whether the reassessments for the later assessment years were bad in law for non-issuance of notice under section 143(2) after the returns were filed in response to notice under section 148.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment initiated on a notice issued on 01.04.2021 was governed by the amended reassessment regime and therefore invalid for want of compliance with the substituted procedure.

Analysis: The notice under section 148 was found to have been issued only on 01.04.2021. Once the notice was issued on that date, the substituted reassessment provisions that came into force from 01.04.2021 applied. The reassessment was completed without following the fresh procedure requiring enquiry, opportunity to respond, and consideration of the assessee's reply before forming a view on escapement of income. The reassessment was also founded substantially on information from the investigation wing without independent application of mind in the manner required under the amended regime.

Conclusion: The reassessment was held to be beyond jurisdiction and bad in law, and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessments for the later assessment years were bad in law for non-issuance of notice under section 143(2) after the returns were filed in response to notice under section 148.

Analysis: The assessee had filed returns in response to the reassessment notices, but no notice under section 143(2) was issued for the relevant assessment years. Once a return is filed in response to a notice under section 148 and the assessment is framed under section 143(3) read with section 147, issuance of notice under section 143(2) is mandatory. The omission was not curable under section 292BB because that provision does not cure the complete absence of notice.

Conclusion: The reassessments for those years were held to be void ab initio for want of notice under section 143(2), and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The jurisdictional challenges succeeded, the assessee obtained relief on the foundational validity of the reassessments, and the Revenue's cross appeals could not survive once the reassessments were invalidated.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment notice issued on or after 01.04.2021 is governed by the amended reassessment framework then in force, and completion of assessment without mandatory statutory notice under section 143(2) after a return is filed in response to section 148 renders the reassessment void.

---