Reassessment jurisdiction challenge fails after retrospective amendment; writ petitions dismissed, with limited time to seek further relief.

The text states that reassessment proceedings under Sections 148A, 147 and 148 were challenged on the ground that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer lacked competence, but that objection was treated as displaced by the later insertion of Section 147A and by the Supreme Court's order in the connected matters. It further notes that any vires challenge to the amended provision must be pursued before the Division Bench under the Madras High Court Writ Rules, 2021. On that basis, the writ petitions against the reassessment notices and consequential orders were held not maintainable on merits and dismissed, subject to limited protection keeping recovery in abeyance for 30 days to enable further relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 148A, 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained in view of the challenge based on lack of jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, and whether the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed after the insertion of Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Supreme Court's order in the connected reassessment matters.

Analysis: The petitions challenged reassessment notices and consequential orders on the footing that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer lacked competence to initiate proceedings under Section 148A. The Court noted that the Supreme Court had since set aside the earlier High Court view favourable to assessees, remitted the matters for fresh consideration, and left open the challenge to the amended provision while granting liberty to seek appropriate relief. The Court also noted that a challenge to the vires of the amended provision would lie only before the Division Bench under Rule 17(1)(iii) of the Madras High Court Writ Rules, 2021. On merits, the issue was treated as covered against the petitioners by the earlier decision of this Court and was further clarified by the insertion of Section 147A.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were held not maintainable on merits and were dismissed, with only limited protection keeping recovery in abeyance for 30 days to enable the petitioners to seek further relief.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment challenges were rejected, while the petitioners were left at liberty to pursue any permissible challenge to the amended provision before the appropriate forum.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the jurisdictional objection to reassessment stands displaced by an intervening retrospective amendment and the Supreme Court has left the validity and scope of the amended provision open for separate challenge, the writ petitions against the reassessment proceedings are liable to be dismissed on merits.

---