Reassessment reopening lacked nexus with assessee where loose paper and unconnected third-party reference could not justify section 148 action.

Reopening under section 148 failed where the material relied on was a loose paper referring to an unrelated third party, without the assessee's name, signature, or any direct or indirect link to the assessee. The record also did not connect the entities named in the satisfaction note to the assessee, and the sale deed showed that the land sold was agricultural land, not non-agricultural land as assumed in the loose paper. On that basis, the court treated the reopening as resting on conjecture rather than legally sustainable material and quashed the notice and the consequential reassessment order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the consequent reassessment order could be sustained when the reopening was founded on a loose paper referring to an unrelated third party, showing non-agricultural land, whereas the petitioner had sold agricultural land, and no direct or indirect link with the petitioner was established.

Analysis: The reopening was based on a loose paper that did not bear the petitioner's name or signature and only mentioned a person unconnected with the petitioner. The recorded material also did not establish any connection between the petitioner and the entities referred to in the satisfaction note. The sale deed on record showed that the land had been sold as agricultural land, whereas the loose paper proceeded on the basis of non-agricultural land with a presumed rate. In these circumstances, the material lacked the necessary nexus with the petitioner and the reopening was founded on conjectural assumptions rather than legally sustainable material.

Conclusion: The notice under section 148 and the consequential reassessment order were quashed and set aside, in favour of the assessee.

---