Cryptic closure of reassessment proceedings can still count as an order of reassessment and trigger the revisional bar.

An order that disposes of reassessment proceedings on the assessee's objection, even if recorded in brief or cryptic language such as "proceeding filed", is treated as an order of reassessment for purposes of the revisional bar. The effect of the order is determined from the surrounding circumstances and not the form of expression alone. Where the basis for reassessment is rejected after consideration of the assessee's stand, the Commissioner cannot revise that order under the statutory bar in section 33B(2)(a).

---

---

Issues: Whether an order recording that reassessment proceedings were "filed" amounted to an order of reassessment under section 34, and whether such an order could be revised by the Commissioner in view of the bar in section 33B(2)(a).

Analysis: The order was passed after the assessee's objection to the notice under section 34(1)(a) was considered and accepted. On the facts, the basis for reassessment was rejected, and the cryptic endorsement "proceeding filed" was treated as a substantive conclusion on the reassessment proceedings. The Court held that the effect of the order must be gathered from the surrounding circumstances, and that assessment includes reassessment. An order which effectively terminates reassessment proceedings after judicial consideration of the assessee's stand is an order of reassessment for the purpose of section 33B(2)(a).

Conclusion: The order filing the proceedings was an order of reassessment, and the Commissioner was precluded from revising it under section 33B(2)(a); the question was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: An order disposing of reassessment proceedings on merits, even if expressed in brief or cryptic language, is an order of reassessment for the purposes of the revisional bar under section 33B(2)(a).

---