Reassessment notice regime: Section 148A(d) orders quashed, with fresh objections and hearing directed under binding Supreme Court rulings.

Orders under Section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act and the consequential reassessment proceedings were held unsustainable where they conflicted with binding Supreme Court rulings on the reassessment notice regime. The HC quashed those orders and proceedings, and restored the assessee's opportunity to raise objections afresh, including jurisdictional objections, with a fresh hearing and decision in accordance with law. Liberty to pursue other remedies was preserved, subject to issues already concluded by the Supreme Court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the consequential reassessment proceedings were liable to be quashed in view of the Supreme Court decisions on notices issued under Section 148; (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to file fresh objections, including jurisdictional objections, and have them decided afresh in accordance with law.

Issue (i): Whether orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the consequential reassessment proceedings were liable to be quashed in view of the Supreme Court decisions on notices issued under Section 148.

Analysis: The orders under Section 148A(d) arose from initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 148. The Supreme Court decisions in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal had already settled the governing position regarding notices issued during the relevant period. In that background, the impugned orders and the consequential proceedings could not be sustained as they stood.

Conclusion: The orders under Section 148A(d) and the consequential proceedings were quashed and set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to file fresh objections, including jurisdictional objections, and have them decided afresh in accordance with law.

Analysis: The appropriate course was to permit the assessee to raise objections afresh, including jurisdictional objections, and to require the Assessing Officer to grant an opportunity of hearing and decide the matter in conformity with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Liberty to pursue other remedies was preserved, subject to issues already concluded by the Supreme Court.

Conclusion: The assessee was permitted to file fresh objections within four weeks, and the Assessing Officer was directed to hear and decide them afresh according to law.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent that the impugned reassessment-related orders were annulled and the matter was sent back for reconsideration of objections in accordance with the controlling Supreme Court decisions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where reassessment orders are passed in a manner inconsistent with binding Supreme Court rulings governing the notice regime, the orders and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed and the assessee must be afforded a fresh opportunity to raise objections and be heard.

---