Corrigendum to reassessment notice can cure response-time defect; factual tax explanations must be tested by the Assessing Officer.

A corrigendum extending the time to respond to a section 148A(b) show-cause notice was treated as a valid correction of the initial arithmetical error, so the time allowed to the assessee was excluded under the third proviso to section 149(1) and the section 148A(d) order and subsequent section 148 notice were held to be within limitation; approval by the Principal Commissioner was therefore sufficient. On merits, the writ court declined to examine the sufficiency of the material for escapement of income, holding that the assessee's explanation on inter-bank transfers, interest income, an NRE account, RBI permission and exemption claims required factual verification by the Assessing Officer. The reassessment was allowed to proceed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment notice and the order under section 148A(d) were barred by limitation and vitiated for want of proper authority, including the effect of the corrigenda issued to the show-cause notice; (ii) Whether the reassessment proceedings were liable to be quashed on merits for alleged absence of escapement of income and non-consideration of the petitioner's explanation and supporting material.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment notice and the order under section 148A(d) were barred by limitation and vitiated for want of proper authority, including the effect of the corrigenda issued to the show-cause notice.

Analysis: The initial notice under section 148A(b) granted less than seven days, but the subsequent corrigenda extended the time to 02.04.2022. On that basis, the period allowed to the assessee had to be excluded under the third proviso to section 149(1), and the order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 dated 07.04.2022 fell within limitation. The corrigendum was treated as a valid correction of the arithmetical error in fixing the response time. Since the notice was treated as within three years, the approval by the Principal Commissioner was sufficient and the objection based on the higher specified authority did not survive.

Conclusion: The challenge on limitation and want of competent approval was rejected and the proceedings were held to be within time and validly authorized.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment proceedings were liable to be quashed on merits for alleged absence of escapement of income and non-consideration of the petitioner's explanation and supporting material.

Analysis: The Court held that the writ court would not undertake a roving enquiry into the sufficiency of material at the stage of reassessment. The petitioner's explanation regarding inter-bank transfers, interest income, the NRE account, and the claimed source of the larger deposit required examination by the assessing authority. The Court found that the material concerning the RBI permission and the tax treatment of the large deposit, as well as the claim of exemption, were matters for the Assessing Officer to verify in the reassessment proceedings. No interference was called for merely because the petitioner asserted that the sums were explained or exempt.

Conclusion: The challenge on merits failed and the reassessment was permitted to continue before the Assessing Officer.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was left to raise all factual and legal contentions before the assessing authority in the reassessment proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A corrigendum issued within limitation can validly cure an initial defect in the response period under section 148A(b), and the writ court will not quash reassessment proceedings where the assessee's explanations and claim of non-taxability require factual verification by the assessing authority.

---