Reassessment reopening fails where approval relies on the premise that no return was filed and ignores the actual record.

Reassessment under section 148 was held invalid where the recorded reasons and approval proforma wrongly stated that no return had been filed, although the assessee had filed a return under section 139(4). That incorrect factual foundation, coupled with approval granted without examining the true record, showed non-application of mind at the reopening stage. As the very basis for assuming jurisdiction was faulty, the notice and reassessment could not be sustained and were void.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 were valid when the approval form recorded that no return had been filed, although the assessee had filed a return under section 139(4), and whether the approval granted for reopening was mechanical.

Analysis: The recorded reasons and the approval proforma proceeded on the footing that no voluntary return had been filed, whereas the record showed that the assessee had filed a return under section 139(4). The omission to notice this material fact in the reasons recorded, and the approval being granted without examining the correct factual foundation, showed non-application of mind at the stage of reopening. Since the very substratum for reopening was based on incorrect facts, the assumption of jurisdiction for issuing notice under section 148 could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction and void, and the reopening was invalid.

---