Jurisdictional defects in reassessment: reopening by an unauthorised officer and assessment before the e-assessment regime became operative.

Reassessment was held invalid on jurisdictional grounds at both stages. First, the reopening notice issued by the Income-tax Officer was beyond the officer's jurisdiction because the assessee's returned income fell above the allocation threshold under the applicable CBDT instruction, so the reassessment could not lawfully commence. Second, the reassessment order was passed by the NFAC before the relevant e-assessment notification had become operative, meaning the forum used for completion had not yet been legally empowered. Each defect independently went to the root of the proceedings, rendering the reassessment void ab initio and the matter decided in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notice initiating reassessment was without jurisdiction because the assessee's returned income placed the case outside the range of the Income-tax Officer under the applicable administrative instruction; (ii) Whether the reassessment order passed by the NFAC before the effective date of the relevant e-assessment notification was without jurisdiction and void.

Issue (i): Whether the notice initiating reassessment was without jurisdiction because the assessee's returned income placed the case outside the range of the Income-tax Officer under the applicable administrative instruction.

Analysis: The assessee's returned income exceeded the monetary threshold prescribed for allocation of metro city corporate cases to the higher assessing authority under the CBDT instruction relied upon. On that basis, the notice issued by the Income-tax Officer for reopening was held to have been issued by an lacking the requisite jurisdiction. Since the jurisdictional defect went to the root of the reopening, the subsequent reassessment proceedings could not stand.

Conclusion: The reopening notice was invalid and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment order passed by the NFAC before the effective date of the relevant e-assessment notification was without jurisdiction and void.

Analysis: The assessment was completed before the notification making the specified e-assessment arrangement operative. The order was therefore passed at a time when the NFAC route invoked in the case was not yet legally in force for the reassessment. This jurisdictional infirmity independently affected the validity of the reassessment order.

Conclusion: The reassessment order passed by the NFAC was without jurisdiction and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were invalid on jurisdictional grounds at both the stage of reopening and at the stage of completion of assessment, and the assessee obtained full relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the reopening notice is issued by an authority lacking jurisdiction under the applicable CBDT allocation instruction, and the reassessment is completed by an authority not yet empowered by the operative notification, the entire reassessment is void ab initio.

---