Reassessment jurisdiction fails where notices are time-barred and approval under section 151(ii) is obtained from the wrong authority.

Reassessment notices were held void where the consequential section 148 notices were issued beyond the surviving limitation period after the original notices, applying the Supreme Court's Rajeev Bansal principle on exclusion of time under the new reassessment regime. For years where more than three years had elapsed from the end of assessment, approval had to come from the authority mandated by section 151(ii); approval from the Principal Commissioner was insufficient, so the section 148A(d) orders and section 148 notices were invalid. Once the jurisdictional notices failed, the Commissioner (Appeals) could not restore the matters for fresh adjudication, and the reassessments were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the consequential notices under section 148 and the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation in view of the surviving period available after the original notices issued during 1 April 2021 to 30 June 2021; (ii) whether, for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18, approval from the Principal Commissioner satisfied the statutory requirement under section 151 when more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment years; and (iii) whether the Commissioner (Appeals) could restore the assessments for fresh adjudication after the jurisdictional reassessment notices were held invalid.

Issue (i): Whether the consequential notices under section 148 and the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation in view of the surviving period available after the original notices issued during 1 April 2021 to 30 June 2021?

Analysis: The limitation question was governed by the legal fiction created in the reassessment regime as explained by the Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal. The period between the deemed notice and supply of relevant material, along with the time allowed to respond, had to be excluded, and the Revenue was required to act within the surviving period remaining from the date of the original notice up to 30 June 2021. Applying that principle, the consequential notice for Assessment Year 2015-16 was issued after the permissible period, and the notices for the remaining years were also issued beyond the surviving time available.

Conclusion: The consequential notices under section 148 were time-barred and invalid for all three assessment years.

Issue (ii): Whether, for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18, approval from the Principal Commissioner satisfied the statutory requirement under section 151 when more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment years?

Analysis: The statutory scheme requires approval from the authority specified under section 151(ii) where the notice is issued after expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The jurisdictional defect is not procedural but goes to the root of the reassessment jurisdiction. Since the approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner, and not from the higher authority mandated by section 151(ii), the prerequisite for valid assumption of jurisdiction was not met.

Conclusion: The approval was invalid and the orders under section 148A(d) and the consequential notices under section 148 for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18 were bad in law.

Issue (iii): Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) could restore the assessments for fresh adjudication after the jurisdictional reassessment notices were held invalid?

Analysis: Once the foundational notices and the proceedings under sections 148A(d) and 148 were held void, no valid reassessment proceeding survived for revival or remand. The premise on which the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the assessments was inconsistent with the express nature of the assessment orders and, in any event, could not revive invalid jurisdictional proceedings.

Conclusion: The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) restoring the matters for fresh assessment could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings for all three years failed on jurisdictional grounds, the assessments and appellate directions for fresh adjudication were quashed, and the assessee obtained complete relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment notice issued beyond the surviving limitation period, or without approval from the statutorily designated specified authority under section 151(ii) where applicable, is void ab initio and cannot sustain the reassessment or any consequential appellate restoration.

---