Reopening of assessment under section 147/148: issuance within limitation, not delayed service, upheld; petition dismissed.

Under the pre-amendment regime governing reopening of assessment, the jurisdictional requirement is issuance of a notice under section 148 within the period of limitation; service after that period does not defeat jurisdiction. Applying the dispatch/date-of-despatch principle from precedent, the notice issued on 31.03.2019 was validly issued within limitation and receipt on the same date confirmed effective issuance. Consequently, any defect in later service or enclosure of another assessee's notice did not vitiate the proceedings and the writ petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notice purportedly issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 31.03.2019 was validly issued within the period of limitation notwithstanding an inadvertent attachment of a notice belonging to another assessee and absence of an automatic ITBA e-mail trigger.

Analysis: Under the pre-amendment regime applicable on 31.03.2019, the jurisdictional requirement for reopening an assessment under Section 148 is the issuance of the notice within the period prescribed by Section 149; the date of despatch (issuance) is the relevant date. The mere attachment of a document pertaining to another assessee or the lack of a real-time automated e-mail alert does not annul the substance of a communication that correctly names the assessee, PAN and assessment year. The defect in attachment is curable and does not equate to a jurisdictional defect vitiating the notice. The decision in Suman Jeet Agarwal is distinguishable because it arose from a time-bound regime change in limitation; by contrast, the present facts fall under the unamended law where issuance within limitation suffices even if service occurs later. Authoritative principle establishes issuance, not service, as determinative for Section 149 purposes.

Conclusion: The notice dated 31.03.2019 under Section 148 was validly issued within the period of limitation and the objection based on the inadvertent attachment and the mode of transmission is rejected; the reassessment proceedings may continue (decision adverse to the assessee).

---