Mandatory section 143(2) notice and concrete reopening material are required before reassessment can be sustained.

Once an assessee treats the original return as the return in response to notice under section 148, issuance of notice under section 143(2) becomes mandatory before reassessment is completed; absence of that notice creates a jurisdictional defect and the reassessment cannot stand. Reopening also cannot rest on investigation material framed only in tentative, probable, or presumptive terms without definite verification or a concrete factual link to the assessee. On both grounds, the reassessment was annulled and the Revenue's challenge failed; remaining grounds were left open.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment proceedings were vitiated for want of notice under section 143(2) after the assessee treated the original return as a return in response to notice under section 148; (ii) Whether reopening based on investigation material describing the assessee only on a probable or presumptive basis was sustainable in law.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment proceedings were vitiated for want of notice under section 143(2) after the assessee treated the original return as a return in response to notice under section 148.

Analysis: The assessee had communicated to the Assessing Officer that the return originally filed under section 139(1) should be treated as the return in response to notice under section 148. Once such compliance was made, issuance of notice under section 143(2) became mandatory before completing reassessment. The record showed that no notice under section 143(2) was issued. In such circumstances, the reassessment suffered from a jurisdictional defect and could not be sustained.

Conclusion: This issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether reopening based on investigation material describing the assessee only on a probable or presumptive basis was sustainable in law.

Analysis: The reopening was founded on investigation-wing material that used tentative expressions and clubbed names on the basis of probability, without definite verification or supporting material linking the assessee to the alleged transactions. Reassessment cannot rest on conjecture, suspicion, or probable identity alone. Since the material lacked a concrete factual foundation and did not establish an independent basis for reopening, the assumption of jurisdiction was unsustainable.

Conclusion: This issue was also decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment was annulled and the appeal succeeded, while the remaining grounds were left open without adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Once an assessee treats the original return as the return in response to notice under section 148, the Assessing Officer must issue notice under section 143(2) before completing reassessment, and reopening cannot be sustained on mere probability or unverified suspicion.

---