Finality of reassessment prevents reopening completed assessments under the new reassessment notice regime after procedural notices.

Whether assessments already completed under the pre- or old-regime can be reopened by issuing fresh notices under the substituted reassessment procedure was the central issue; the court applied the principle of finality of assessment to hold that the Supreme Court directions validating procedural notices and the surviving limitation framework permit issuance and validation of notices that had not culminated in assessment within the surviving time limits, but do not require or permit reopening assessments already concluded on the merits. Outcome: impugned reassessment orders reopened those concluded assessments were set aside and relief granted to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether assessments already completed by an order under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be reopened by issuance of a fresh notice under Section 148A(b) and consequent notice under Section 148 (new regime) following the decisions in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal and Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal.

Analysis: The petitions challenge assessment orders dated 30.03.2023 (arising from notices and proceedings under the new regime) on the ground that earlier assessment orders pursuant to proceedings under the old regime had already been passed. The legal framework comprises the substituted provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 effective from 01.04.2021, the directions in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal treating certain pre- and post-1.4.2021 notices as deemed show-cause notices under section 148A(b), and the further clarifications in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal regarding the application of the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 and the surviving limitation period for issuance of reassessment notices. Where an assessment had already been completed earlier (resulting in an assessment order under section 147/144), the purpose and finality of reassessment proceedings precludes reopening the same assessment by issuing fresh notices under section 148A(b) and section 148. The Supreme Court directions operate to validate and prescribe procedure for notices that had not culminated in an assessment within the surviving time limits, but do not mandate reopening assessments which were earlier completed on the merits.

Conclusion: Writ petitions are allowed; impugned assessment orders set aside to the extent they attempt to reopen assessments already concluded. Relief is granted in favour of the petitioner (assessee).

---