Mechanical reopening approval and mismatch with return facts invalidated the reassessment, despite the notice-signing objection failing.

A reassessment challenge turned on the validity of a section 148 notice signed by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer rather than the Faceless Assessing Officer, and the objection on that ground was rejected because binding precedent had already upheld such notice. The reassessment was nevertheless quashed because the recorded reasons alleged escapement on facts unrelated to the assessee's return position, where the income had already been offered and the relevant gain was adjusted against brought-forward loss. The section 151 approval was found mechanical and showed no application of mind, and reliance on section 115BBE did not cure the defect because set-off was not then barred. The reassessment was held void ab initio.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 signed by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer vitiated the reopening; (ii) Whether the reassessment was valid when the recorded reasons alleged escapement on facts that were irrelevant to the assessee's case and the approval under section 151 was mechanical.

Issue (i): Whether a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 signed by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer vitiated the reopening.

Analysis: The validity of the notice was examined in light of binding jurisdictional precedent which had already decided the same question. The challenge was therefore not accepted.

Conclusion: The objection to the notice on this ground was rejected and the reopening was not invalidated on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment was valid when the recorded reasons alleged escapement on facts that were irrelevant to the assessee's case and the approval under section 151 was mechanical.

Analysis: The recorded reasons proceeded on allegations concerning non-genuine loss transactions, whereas the assessee had shown a profit which was already offered to tax. The alleged gain was adjusted against brought-forward business loss, and the loss for the earlier year was never doubted. On that footing, there was no escapement of income. The approval under section 151 was found to be a mere formality, showing non-application of mind. The alternative reliance on section 115BBE also did not sustain the belief of escapement because, on the relevant date, set-off was not yet prohibited.

Conclusion: The reassessment was held to be without valid jurisdiction and void ab initio.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were quashed and the assessee obtained full relief in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment cannot be sustained where the alleged escapement is unsupported by the assessee's actual return position and the sanction for reopening is granted mechanically without application of mind.

---