Free Invoice Generator – Luzenta

Reassessment under the Income Tax Act is a vital tool enabling tax authorities to revisit assessments where income has escaped scrutiny. However, the validity of such reassessment proceedings depends heavily on compliance with statutory provisions, especially the timelines outlined in section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In recent years, legislative amendments and judicial decisions, particularly those delivered in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, have significantly altered the procedural landscape. The controversy surrounding reassessment notices issued during the transitional period following the enactment of the Finance Act, 2021, and the continued application of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, or TOLA, has become a subject of intense legal scrutiny.

This article examines the backdrop against which the reassessment provisions evolved, focusing on the legal conflict triggered by the overlap between the new reassessment regime and the pandemic-related relaxations provided by TOLA. The judgments of the Supreme Court interpreting these developments have had far-reaching consequences, both procedurally and substantively.

The Role and Scope of TOLA in Extending Limitation

The COVID-19 pandemic severely disrupted administrative functioning and compliance by taxpayers. Recognizing the challenges posed by widespread lockdowns, the government enacted TOLA to provide relief by extending timelines for various statutory actions. Among other things, TOLA extended time limits for issuing reassessment notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act.

Section 3(1) of TOLA provides that where any time limit specified in the Income Tax Act falls between March 20, 2020, and March 31, 2021, the period shall be extended to June 30, 2021. This applied to a wide range of actions, including assessment, reassessment, and the issuance of notices. By its design, TOLA served as a temporary relaxation tool meant to ensure that procedural deadlines did not disadvantage the revenue department during the pandemic.

Thus, reassessment notices that otherwise would have become time-barred by March 31, 2021, were permitted to be issued until June 30, 2021, provided they originally fell within the defined window of TOLA.

The Finance Act, 2021 and the Overhaul of the Reassessment Regime

While TOLA was still in operation, the Finance Act, 2021 introduced sweeping changes to the reassessment provisions under the Income Tax Act. The Finance Act, effective from April 1, 2021, substituted sections 147 to 151 and introduced an entirely new framework.

A key procedural safeguard introduced by the new regime is section 148A, which requires the assessing officer to conduct an enquiry and provide the assessee with a prior opportunity to respond before issuing a reassessment notice. The new process includes four crucial steps: conducting an enquiry under section 148A(a), furnishing information to the assessee, allowing a reply under section 148A(b), and passing an order under section 148A(d) deciding whether to proceed.

Simultaneously, section 149 was also amended to revise the limitation periods for reopening assessments. Under the new regime, a notice can be issued within three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. However, in cases where the escaped income exceeds fifty lakh rupees and is represented in the form of assets, the period can be extended to ten years. Most notably, a provision to section 149(1)(b) prohibits reopening assessments for any year where the limitation under the old law expired before April 1, 2021.

This proviso was critical. It meant that if the six-year window for reassessment had already expired under the pre-amended law, reopening could not be done under the new regime even with the extended ten-year limit unless the case qualified under specific thresholds. For instance, for assessment year 2013–14, the limitation period under the old law expired on March 31, 2020. Therefore, even if the escaped income exceeded fifty lakh rupees, reopening was barred unless saved by another provision.

The Conflict Between TOLA and the Amended Section 149

The issuance of reassessment notices after April 1, 2021, but within the TOLA-extended timeline up to June 30, 2021, triggered widespread litigation. The core issue was whether such notices could be issued under the old law (pre-amended section 148) merely by relying on TOLA, or whether they had to conform to the new reassessment framework introduced by the Finance Act, 2021.

The department issued thousands of reassessment notices under the old regime between April 1 and June 30, 2021. Taxpayers argued that from April 1, 2021, all reassessment proceedings had to be initiated only under the new law, which made section 148A compliance mandatory. The absence of these procedural steps rendered the notices invalid.

Another point of contention was whether TOLA could override the bar created by the proviso to section 149(1)(b), which stated that assessments time-barred under the old law as on March 31, 2021, could not be reopened after April 1, 2021.

These issues reached the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal. The Court was called upon to reconcile the application of TOLA with the requirements of the newly introduced reassessment regime.

Supreme Court’s Decision in Ashish Agarwal

In its judgment in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, the Supreme Court adopted a pragmatic approach to address the procedural inconsistency. It held that reassessment notices issued under the old section 148 between April 1 and June 30, 2021, would be deemed to be show-cause notices issued under section 148A(b) of the new law.

This approach validated the actions already taken by the department but subjected them to the procedural requirements of the amended regime. The Court’s rationale was that both the department and the assessees were caught in a legal transition complicated by the ongoing pandemic. Therefore, a harmonized solution was necessary to avoid penalizing either party unfairly.

As per the judgment, assessing officers were required to furnish the underlying material forming the basis for reopening, provide the assessee with an opportunity to respond, and pass a reasoned order under section 148A(d). Only after fulfilling these conditions could a fresh notice under section 148 be issued.

Procedural Regularization Post-Ashish Agarwal

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Central Board of Direct Taxes issued detailed instructions to guide assessing officers on how to transition from the old procedure to the new one. The instructions laid out steps to be taken in accordance with section 148A and required strict adherence to the principles of natural justice before proceeding further.

However, the decision in Ashish Agarwal did not directly resolve the limitation issue under section 149. While it allowed procedural conversion of old notices into deemed section 148A(b) notices, the validity of such reassessment proceedings still depended on whether the notice complied with the limitation period under the amended section 149.

Continued Litigation over Section 149 and TOLA

Taxpayers continued to challenge the validity of reassessment notices, particularly for assessment years where the limitation under the old law had already expired as of March 31, 2021. Their argument was that the proviso to section 149(1)(b) prohibited reopening such cases, irrespective of the benefit of extension under TOLA.

This raised the crucial legal question: Can TOLA be interpreted to revive limitation periods that had already lapsed under the old regime, in contradiction to the bar created by the new section 149?

Several High Courts took divergent views. Some held that TOLA was a standalone provision that extended time limits and permitted reopening beyond March 31, 2021. Others ruled that once the new regime took effect, the limitation must be strictly construed based on the amended law, especially the new provision to section 149.

The matter again reached the Supreme Court, which had to determine whether the relaxation provided by TOLA could override the limitation bar under the amended section 149.

Supreme Court’s Interpretation of TOLA and Section 149

In a subsequent judgment, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that TOLA continued to apply even after the new reassessment provisions came into effect. The Court emphasized that section 3(1) of TOLA, which refers to “any” time limit for completion or compliance of actions under specified Acts, included reassessment actions under the Income Tax Act.

It clarified that the substitution of the reassessment provisions did not nullify the operation of TOLA. Rather, TOLA extended the permissible window for initiating reassessment, subject to the amended conditions under section 149.

However, the Court made it clear that the proviso to section 149(1)(b) had an overriding effect. This meant that if the time limit under the old law had already expired before April 1, 2021, the benefit of TOLA could not be used to reopen those cases unless the case fell within the extended ten-year limit for high-value escaped income under the amended law.

For example, in cases involving the assessment year 2013–14, where the six-year window ended on March 31, 2020, reassessment was completely barred unless the conditions under the new ten-year clause were satisfied. Even TOLA could not revive a limitation that had expired prior to the operation of the amended law.

Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the legislative intention to close the door on stale assessments while recognizing the continuing validity of TOLA for those cases where reassessment remained permissible under the new framework.

The Interplay of Judicial Directions and Administrative Compliance

The judgments of the Supreme Court have established a dual condition for the validity of reassessment notices issued during the transition period. First, procedural compliance with section 148A is mandatory for all notices issued after April 1, 2021. Second, the limitation must be assessed in accordance with the amended section 149, taking into account the operation of TOLA only in cases where the reassessment would still be otherwise permissible.

As a result, many reassessment proceedings for assessment years prior to 2014–15 have either been dropped or are pending appellate review. Taxpayers are now more vigilant in raising objections to reopening notices that fail to satisfy either of these two conditions.

Introduction to Assessment Year-Based Impact Analysis

Following the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the reassessment framework in the backdrop of the amended provisions and the temporary relaxations under TOLA, practical consequences have emerged with respect to the validity of notices issued for various assessment years. The legal matrix governing reassessment now hinges on two simultaneous filters: the extended timelines permissible under TOLA and the limitation restrictions introduced by the amended section 149 of the Income Tax Act.

Understanding how these filters apply to specific assessment years enables a more accurate determination of the legal sustainability of reassessment notices. We analyze year-wise illustrations to evaluate whether the reassessment action can withstand judicial scrutiny, especially for cases caught in the transition period between the erstwhile and amended reassessment regimes.

Key Legal Provisions for Reference

Before moving into the illustrative analysis, it is essential to revisit two critical legal provisions forming the bedrock of this reassessment controversy.

Section 3(1) of TOLA states that if any time limit for taking action falls between March 20, 2020, and March 31, 2021, the period stands extended to June 30, 2021. This provision effectively shifted the sunset date for issuing reassessment notices, provided they would otherwise have expired within this window.

The amended section 149, introduced via the Finance Act, 2021, with effect from April 1, 2021, prescribes two categories:

• Three years from the end of the relevant assessment year in general cases

• Ten years where the escaped income exceeds fifty lakh rupees and is represented in the form of assets

The provision to section 149(1)(b) bars reopening for any assessment year where limitation under the unamended law expires before April 1, 2021.

This dual-layered restriction has created interpretational complexities that are best understood through illustrations.

Matrix 1: Assessment Year 2013–14

Under the pre-amended law, the limitation for reassessment extended up to six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. For assessment year 2013–14, the six-year window closed on March 31, 2020.

TOLA applies only where the limitation would have expired between March 20, 2020, and March 31, 2021. Since the original limitation for this year expired before March 20, 2020, TOLA does not apply.

Furthermore, under the amended section 149, reopening is permitted for up to ten years only if the escaped income exceeds fifty lakh rupees and is represented in the form of assets. However, the proviso to section 149(1)(b) prohibits reopening of assessments where the limitation under the old regime had already expired before April 1, 2021.

Hence, unless the income involved exceeds the threshold and is asset-linked, reopening for this year is legally barred.

Notices issued after April 1, 2021, for AY 2013–14 are invalid unless they fall within the ten-year limit and satisfy the fifty lakh threshold.

Matrix 2: Assessment Year 2014–15

The six-year limitation under the unamended law expired on March 31, 2021. Therefore, TOLA extends the permissible period to June 30, 2021.

Many reassessment notices were issued under the old regime during this TOLA-extended period. Following the Supreme Court decision in Ashish Agarwal, these are deemed to be show-cause notices under section 148A(b).

However, the amended section 149 comes into effect from April 1, 2021. The proviso does not bar reopening in this case since the original limitation expired within the TOLA window. Thus, reassessment is permissible provided the procedural requirements under section 148A are followed and the income thresholds under section 149 are respected.

Notices for AY 2014–15 issued between April 1 and June 30, 2021, are procedurally valid, subject to compliance with section 148A and satisfaction of threshold conditions where applicable.

Matrix 3: Assessment Year 2015–16

The six-year limitation under the old law would have expired on March 31, 2022. Since the new reassessment provisions apply from April 1, 2021, reassessment actions for this year fall entirely within the new regime.

As of April 1, 2021, the old law is no longer applicable for issuing notices. Therefore, all reassessment actions post-April 1, 2021, must strictly comply with the new process under section 148A and adhere to the amended section 149.

Because the limitation for this year had not yet expired under the old law, the bar under the proviso to section 149(1)(b) does not apply. Therefore, reassessment is valid if undertaken within the three-year period from the end of the relevant assessment year, i.e., by March 31, 2019 + 3 = March 31, 2022.

TOLA does not need to apply since the limitation had not expired in the critical period.

Reassessment for AY 2015–16 is valid under the new law, provided action is taken within the three-year period ending March 31, 2022.

Matrix 4: Assessment Year 2016–17

The reassessment window under the old law would have ended on March 31, 2023. Under the amended section 149, reassessment is permissible for three years from the end of the assessment year, i.e., up to March 31, 2020 + 3 = March 31, 2023.

Because this timeline falls after the effective date of the new law, notices must comply with the requirements under section 148A. The provision to section 149(1)(b) does not bar reopening in this case.

TOLA is not relevant because the limitation had not expired during the pandemic window.

Reassessment for AY 2016–17 is valid if conducted as per amended provisions and within three years from the end of the assessment year.

Matrix 5: Assessment Year 2017–18

For AY 2017–18, reassessment notices can be issued until March 31, 2024, under the new law.

The three-year limit under the amended section 149 runs from March 31, 2018 to March 31, 2021, but TOLA can be invoked if limitation would otherwise have expired during the pandemic period. For example, if the assessment was time-barred during the March 2020 to March 2021 window, it could have been extended to June 30, 2021.

However, in most cases for this assessment year, the limitation was still active, and there is no bar under the proviso.

Notices are valid under amended law if they meet the conditions under section 148A and are issued within the three-year limit or the extended ten-year limit in cases of high-value income.

The Fifty Lakh Threshold and Asset Representation

A critical condition under section 149(1)(b) for invoking the ten-year limitation is that the escaped income should exceed fifty lakh rupees and should be represented in the form of assets. The law clarifies that representation in the form of assets includes immovable property, shares, loans, advances, or deposits.

Therefore, simply detecting escaped income above fifty lakh rupees is insufficient. The department must also establish a tangible nexus between the escaped income and the existence of such assets. This condition acts as a safeguard to prevent indiscriminate reopening of old assessments.

In many cases, courts have invalidated reassessment notices where the income exceeded fifty lakh rupees but was not asset-linked. For example, in cases where income was underreported in business transactions or misclassified under heads of income but not tied to assets, reopening under the extended ten-year window has been held to be impermissible.

This threshold test has therefore become a critical filter in determining whether the longer limitation can be invoked.

Challenges Arising from Deemed Conversion under Ashish Agarwal

While the Supreme Court allowed a deemed conversion of old section 148 notices into section 148A(b) show-cause notices, this concession has not immunized those notices from scrutiny under the amended section 149.

The revenue department has faced obstacles where the notices were issued for years that had already become time-barred before April 1, 2021, and where the conditions under the new law were not met.

Furthermore, courts have insisted on strict procedural compliance with section 148A. Where assessing officers failed to issue show-cause notices in the prescribed format, or did not pass proper orders under section 148A(d), the reassessment actions have been struck down despite the Ashish Agarwal judgment. Thus, the deemed conversion granted by the Supreme Court was conditional and did not grant blanket validation.

Divergence in High Court Interpretations and Pending Petitions

The interpretation of the interaction between TOLA and the new reassessment regime has not been uniform across High Courts. While the Supreme Court has provided broad guidance, the application of these principles to facts continues to vary.

For instance, some High Courts have upheld reassessment notices issued for AY 2013–14 by invoking the extended ten-year limit and applying a liberal interpretation of asset representation. Others have taken a more restrictive view, insisting on exacting proof of asset linkage and rejecting speculative assessments.

Numerous writ petitions are pending before different benches of the High Courts where taxpayers have challenged the reassessment actions on procedural and limitation-related grounds. These include cases where the income is close to the fifty lakh threshold, or where the asset linkage is indirect or debatable. Such cases are likely to reach the Supreme Court for further clarification, especially on the interpretation of the asset test under the ten-year window.

Introduction to Practical Impact

The Supreme Court’s ruling in the matter of reassessment notices, in light of the interplay between the old and new provisions of section 148 and the transitional relaxations under TOLA, has had sweeping implications not only for tax administrators but also for taxpayers and professionals. Beyond the legal interpretations, there are direct consequences for how assessments are to be conducted, how notices are to be handled, and what safeguards exist for taxpayers.

We explore the real-world consequences of these legal developments, the strategy that must now be adopted by various stakeholders, the challenges faced by revenue authorities, and the ways forward in reassessment jurisprudence.

Changing Landscape for Taxpayers

For taxpayers, the retrospective validation of reassessment notices issued during the TOLA extension window created both procedural uncertainty and legal vulnerability. The legal fiction created by the Supreme Court, converting section 148 notices into section 148A(b) show-cause notices, meant that taxpayers had to engage with the new procedural regime, even for older cases.

Many taxpayers were suddenly required to respond to notices for years they had assumed to be closed under earlier timelines. In certain instances, the time lag between the issuance of the original notice and the deemed show-cause process also led to loss of documentation, retirement of finance personnel, or difficulty in accessing evidence from earlier years.

Moreover, the onus to challenge such reassessments in writ proceedings shifted the burden of litigation strategy onto taxpayers, especially where the primary objection was to limitation, threshold breach, or lack of proper sanction.

Procedural Challenges and Defenses Available

Taxpayers facing reassessment after April 1, 2021, must now evaluate notices on two axes — compliance with procedural requirements under section 148A and conformity with amended section 149. Some of the procedural defenses available to taxpayers include:

• Whether a valid and proper show-cause notice under section 148A(b) was issued

• Whether the notice disclosed all necessary details enabling an informed response

• Whether a speaking order under section 148A(d) was passed after proper consideration

• Whether prior approval from specified authorities was obtained in the prescribed manner

• Whether the reassessment action falls within the limitation period under amended law

• Whether the escaped income is over fifty lakh rupees and represented in the form of assets for the ten-year limit to apply

If any of these conditions are not met, courts have consistently quashed the reassessment notices. This places significant emphasis on rigorous scrutiny by taxpayers and professionals of each notice received.

Importance of Asset Representation and Evidentiary Standard

One of the most contentious aspects of the reassessment mechanism now hinges on the concept of asset representation. Under section 149(1)(b), the extended ten-year limit is permissible only where the escaped income exceeds fifty lakh rupees and is represented in the form of assets.

Litigation has now moved into the evidentiary domain where taxpayers challenge the sufficiency of material on record to support the allegation of asset representation. This becomes particularly critical in cases where:

• The alleged income pertains to transactions not involving durable or physical assets

• The amount computed by the department barely crosses the fifty lakh threshold

• The asset is alleged to be held indirectly, or in the name of another person

• There is no mention of any asset in the original notice or the order under section 148A(d)

Courts have emphasized that reassessment cannot proceed merely on assumptions or third-party data without primary evidence linking the taxpayer to the alleged asset. This threshold ensures protection against fishing inquiries under the extended limitation.

Strategic Approach to Writ Petitions

In many High Courts, writ petitions continue to be the preferred remedy for taxpayers aggrieved by reassessment notices under the new regime. While the traditional view discouraged intervention in matters involving questions of fact, the structural defects in reassessment notices have led courts to take a more liberal approach.

Taxpayers considering writ petitions should adopt the following strategic steps:

• Ascertain jurisdictional defects: For instance, if the notice was issued by an officer lacking territorial jurisdiction or without proper approval.

• Evaluate limitation precisely: Use clear computation to demonstrate whether limitation under amended law applies or not, accounting for TOLA only when relevant.

• Assert procedural lapses: Such as lack of section 148A(b) compliance, failure to consider reply, or absence of reasoned order under section 148A(d).

• Present evidentiary objections: Challenge whether there is prima facie material supporting the claim of asset representation, or if the notice is based merely on suspicions.

It is important for petitions to be structured with detailed annexures including copies of the notice, reply submitted, reasons recorded, and order passed, to enable effective adjudication.

Implications for Ongoing Assessments

Where reassessment notices have already been deemed valid by virtue of the Supreme Court’s judgment and procedural steps under section 148A have been completed, the case proceeds to scrutiny under the new scheme.

The Assessing Officer must now base the reassessment on material evidence, and not merely repeat the grounds taken in the notice or the order under section 148A(d). The principle of independent application of mind continues to apply at the reassessment stage.

Taxpayers in these cases must:

• Respond with all factual and legal objections to proposed additions

• Produce supporting records, confirmations, and reconciliations to rebut the findings

• Seek cross-examination if the department relies on third-party statements or documents

• Preserve the right to appeal against the reassessment order, where warranted

Given the likely litigation trail, it is prudent to maintain an audit trail of communications and keep legal counsel informed throughout the process.

Administrative Consequences for the Department

The Supreme Court ruling and the subsequent wave of litigation have added substantial administrative burden on the tax department. The need to revisit thousands of reassessment notices, comply with procedural mandates under section 148A, and defend actions in writ proceedings has strained manpower and resources.

Some of the key issues faced by the department include:

• Difficulty in tracing older records or obtaining fresh approvals within tight deadlines

• Errors in drafting show-cause notices or non-speaking orders under section 148A(d)

• Ambiguity regarding the application of the fifty lakh asset test in legacy cases

• Lack of system-based checks to automatically flag cases that fall outside permissible limits

To address these challenges, centralized reassessment cells and reassessment review units have been proposed in certain regions to ensure consistency and quality in reassessment processing.

Risks of Adverse Judicial Precedents

One of the unintended outcomes of the aggressive issuance of reassessment notices during the transitional period is the risk of binding judicial precedents curbing reassessment powers.

In several High Courts, judgments have gone beyond mere procedural grounds and have commented adversely on the manner of reopening, the quality of reasons, and the insufficiency of material. These judgments may restrict departmental discretion in the future and set benchmarks for documentation and evidence.

Moreover, adverse findings on limitation computations or the misuse of TOLA extensions could be cited in unrelated proceedings by other taxpayers, thereby narrowing the scope of reassessment even where legitimate grounds exist. This necessitates a more calibrated and legally robust approach by the department while exercising reassessment powers under the amended framework.

Relevance to Search and Survey Proceedings

Another area impacted by the revised reassessment framework is its intersection with search and survey operations. Where material is discovered during such operations, it is often used to initiate reassessment in non-searched cases under section 148.

However, the question now arises whether such proceedings can be sustained where:

• The information relates to earlier years already barred by limitation

• The income discovered exceeds fifty lakh rupees but is not linked to assets

• The procedural route under section 148A has not been properly followed

Several courts have emphasized that even where survey or search evidence is available, the requirements of limitation, threshold, and procedure must still be met. There is no blanket exemption for assessments emanating from enforcement actions. This reaffirms the principle that reassessment must be legally tenable and procedurally valid, even where revenue interests are at stake.

Professional Responsibilities and Advisory Role

The reassessment rulings and their implementation have also placed greater responsibility on tax professionals, chartered accountants, and legal advisors. In the new regime, advisory work involves:

• Assessing limitation risks before finalizing any tax position

• Drafting timely and accurate replies to show-cause notices

• Advising clients on when to litigate and when to cooperate

• Framing objections in a manner aligned with recent judicial trends

• Maintaining documentation and correspondence to support future challenges

Advisors must also caution clients regarding misinterpretation of notices, avoid perfunctory compliance, and take timely legal recourse where rights are affected.

Future of Reassessment: Evolving Legislative and Judicial Standards

While the current round of litigation is centered around the transition from the old to the new regime, the reassessment provisions will continue to evolve through future amendments and court rulings.

There is a growing expectation that the legislature may consider:

• Introducing clear provisions governing transitions during legal amendments

• Clarifying the scope of asset representation under section 149

• Establishing a centralized database to track limitation periods and avoid invalid notices

• Increasing accountability for issuance of defective or barred reassessment notices

Simultaneously, the judiciary is likely to continue refining the balance between revenue protection and taxpayer rights, especially where procedural fairness and limitations are concerned.

Conclusion

The reassessment framework under the Income Tax Act has undergone a fundamental transformation in recent years, driven by both legislative amendments and judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court’s pivotal judgment, which retrospectively validated reassessment notices issued during the TOLA extension period by deeming them as notices under the new regime, marked a watershed moment in tax jurisprudence. While the decision sought to balance administrative efficiency with legislative intent, it also brought forth a wave of litigation and interpretational challenges.

Through the series, it is evident that the interplay between the old section 148 framework, the transitional relaxation offered by TOLA, and the substituted sections 147 to 151 has raised intricate legal questions. The Supreme Court attempted to resolve this complexity by applying legal fiction and equitable considerations, but its ruling has left several grey areas concerning limitation periods, procedural mandates, and substantive reassessment grounds.

For taxpayers, the implications are significant. They must now navigate a reassessment process that demands rigorous scrutiny of every notice, with close attention to procedural compliance under section 148A, threshold tests under section 149, and the evidentiary standards required to justify the invocation of extended reassessment periods. Professionals advising taxpayers must play an active role in ensuring procedural safeguards are not overlooked and legal remedies are availed in time.

On the administrative side, the revenue authorities face increased pressure to adhere strictly to statutory protocols, document their reasoning transparently, and withstand judicial review. The litigation prompted by defective notices and invalid assumptions of jurisdiction has made it clear that reassessment cannot be treated as a mechanical exercise. It is now a procedurally delicate and substantively constrained power.

As reassessment jurisprudence continues to evolve, both legislature and judiciary have a critical role to play in bringing clarity, consistency, and fairness to the process. A well-calibrated approach that respects taxpayer rights while addressing tax evasion is essential. Going forward, the tax ecosystem must move toward greater predictability, reduced litigation, and a framework where legal safeguards and administrative imperatives coexist harmoniously.