Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesThatPainter is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn More
According to a report published by Juris Hour on 6 October 2026, the Bombay High Court held that an Assessing Officer cannot begin reassessment scrutiny before deciding a taxpayer’s objections to reopening in a speaking order. The court reportedly quashed a Section 143(2) notice issued before the objections were decided and a later Section 142(1) notice issued less than four weeks after their rejection. The ruling was procedural: it did not decide the taxpayer’s other challenges to reopening.
What did the Bombay High Court decide?
In its reported 30 September 2026 rehearing judgment in H. P. Diamonds India Pvt. Ltd., the court treated the Section 143(2) notice as the start of reassessment scrutiny. It rejected the Revenue’s reported argument that the Assessing Officer could issue that notice and proceed with scrutiny as long as the final assessment order was not passed until after the objections had been decided.
The court’s reported conclusion was that neither a Section 143(2) notice nor a Section 142(1) notice could be issued in the reassessment proceedings before the taxpayer’s objections were disposed of by a speaking order. The report says the court set aside both notices and action taken in furtherance of them. This is a procedural holding, not a determination that the reassessment was substantively invalid.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →#1 Best Overall
What happened in the case?
Juris Hour’s account concerns H. P. Diamonds India Pvt. Ltd., a diamond-trading company, and Assessment Year 2012–13. The company had filed a return declaring nil income and a business loss of ₹15,000. An earlier scrutiny assessment had examined substantial share premium. A separate assessment for AY 2016–17 later included a ₹2 crore addition related to shares issued in FY 2011–12 and forfeited in FY 2015–16; the report says an appeal against that assessment was pending.
While that appeal was pending, the Assessing Officer issued a Section 148 notice on 31 March 2019 to reopen AY 2012–13. The reported sequence was:
- 2 September 2019: The Assessing Officer issued a Section 143(2) scrutiny notice.
- 3 September 2019: The report says the recorded reasons for reopening were supplied the day after that notice.
- 2 October 2019: The taxpayer objected to reopening.
- 31 October 2019: The Assessing Officer rejected the objections.
- 12 November 2019: The Assessing Officer issued a Section 142(1) notice.
The first notice therefore preceded the decision on objections. The later Section 142(1) notice followed the rejection by less than four weeks, the interval the court reportedly applied from Asian Paints Ltd.
Why did the order of steps matter?
Objections to reopening challenge the Assessing Officer’s jurisdiction to reassess. The court’s reported reasoning was that those objections must be decided before scrutiny proceeds; postponing only the final assessment order does not cure the problem of starting scrutiny first. The report attributes this observation to the bench: “If one were to issue a Section 143(2) Notice and proceed with the assessment without first disposing of the objections, it would really amount to putting the cart before the horse.”
Rank #3
The ruling also addressed the period after the objections were rejected. The Section 142(1) notice dated 12 November 2019 was issued less than four weeks after the 31 October rejection. Applying the interval described in Asian Paints Ltd., the court reportedly set that notice aside as well.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What did the court leave undecided?
The reported relief was limited to the premature notices and related action. The taxpayer’s other objections—including change of opinion, limitation, application of mind, and approval—were left undecided because the procedural issue was the point pressed before the bench. The judgment should therefore not be read as deciding those grounds, or the merits of the separate ₹2 crore addition.
Rank #4
Procedural history and source qualification
Juris Hour reports that the writ petition was first dismissed on 11 January 2022. The Supreme Court set aside that dismissal on 20 May 2022 and remanded the matter for a reasoned decision. The report identifies the Bombay High Court’s rehearing judgment as dated 30 September 2026.
The chronology and quoted passage above are reported by Juris Hour in its 6 October 2026 account. The primary Bombay High Court judgment was not located in the available reporting, so the complete case caption, case number, and exact quotation context have not been independently confirmed. Readers needing to rely on the ruling should check the primary judgment when available.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
