Reassessment limitation under substituted regime upheld, while writ interference was refused due to disputed capital gains facts.

A reassessment notice issued under the substituted reassessment regime was treated as a deemed notice and tested against the new limitation framework, including applicable exclusions. Because the escaped income crossed the monetary threshold for the extended ten-year period, the 2022 notice fell within time and the reassessment was not barred by limitation. On the writ challenge, the court declined interference because the capital gains dispute turned on factual questions about the property and the sale, which were better suited to the statutory appellate forum. Liberty was left open to pursue appeal and interim protection.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment proceedings and consequential assessment were barred by limitation under the substituted reassessment regime. (ii) Whether the writ court should interfere with the assessment in view of disputed facts and the availability of a statutory appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment proceedings and consequential assessment were barred by limitation under the substituted reassessment regime.

Analysis: The notice originally issued under the unamended reassessment provision was treated as a deemed notice under the substituted scheme. The limitation for issuing notice under the new regime had to be tested with reference to the substituted provisions and the time available after exclusions recognised in the governing Supreme Court directions. For the relevant assessment year, the escaped income exceeded the monetary threshold applicable to the extended ten-year period. On that footing, the reassessment notice issued in 2022 fell within the surviving period of limitation and could not be held time-barred.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were not barred by limitation and the assessee's challenge on that ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ court should interfere with the assessment in view of disputed facts and the availability of a statutory appeal.

Analysis: The dispute on computation of capital gains turned on factual questions concerning the nature of the property and the circumstances of sale. The record disclosed that these issues required examination of facts and evidence, which were better addressed in the appellate forum. In view of the alternative statutory remedy, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction for interference with the assessment, while granting liberty to pursue appeal and seek appropriate interim protection.

Conclusion: Interference in writ jurisdiction was declined and the assessee was left to pursue the statutory appeal.

Final Conclusion: The assessment challenge was rejected, the reassessment was held to be within time, and the petitioner was directed to work out remedies before the appellate authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment notice issued under the substituted regime is valid if it is within the surviving limitation computed under the new reassessment provisions read with the applicable exclusion principles, and writ interference is ordinarily unwarranted where the dispute turns on factual questions better resolved in statutory appeal.

---