The assessee, a non-resident individual residing in the UAE, was subjected to reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee disclosed and substantiated his residential status as a non-resident, which was also accepted by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order and computation sheet. However, instead of issuing a draft assessment order under section 144C(1), the Assessing Officer straightaway passed the final assessment order. The Bombay High Court held that after the Finance Act, 2020, every non-resident (other than a company) is an “eligible assessee” within the meaning of section 144C(15)(b)(ii). Consequently, before making any variation prejudicial to such assessee, issuance of a draft assessment order is mandatory. Failure to follow the statutory procedure deprives the assessee of the valuable right to approach the Dispute Resolution Panel and constitutes a jurisdictional defect, rendering the final assessment order void and liable to be quashed. The assessee filed a return of income in response to the notice issued under section 148, duly verified the return and responded to the subsequent notices issued under sections 142(1) and 143(2). Despite this, the Assessing Officer invoked section 144 and framed a best judgment assessment on the erroneous premise that the assessee had failed to file the return and comply with statutory notices. The Bombay High Court held that the jurisdictional conditions prescribed under section 144 were absent. Once the return had been filed and taken cognizance of by issuance of notice under section 143(2), and the subsequent notices had been substantially complied with, the Assessing Officer could not resort to best judgment assessment. Accordingly, the assessment framed under section 144 was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed . The assessee, a non-resident, was assessed by the Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon, though the Department itself admitted that jurisdiction over a non-resident vested with the International Taxation Circle. The reassessment proceedings were initially conducted under the faceless assessment regime, and only at the final stage was the jurisdictional officer changed, granting the assessee less than twenty-four hours to respond before passing the assessment order. The Bombay High Court held that once the assessee had been accepted as a non-resident, the jurisdiction vested with the International Taxation Circle and not with the Assessing Officer who completed the assessment. In the peculiar facts of the faceless assessment mechanism, the bar contained in section 124(3) was inapplicable. Accordingly, the assessment order was held to be without jurisdiction. The reassessment was initiated on the basis that the assessee had purchased immovable property worth ₹2.04 crore. The assessee consistently explained that he had purchased only one agricultural property for ₹50 lakh and that the higher figure represented quadruple reporting of the same transaction in Form 26AS. The assessee also produced the purchase deed, bank statements and evidence establishing that the investment was made out of remittances from his UAE NRE account. Ignoring the documentary evidence, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment merely because the limitation period was expiring and added the entire amount. The Bombay High Court held that the reassessment suffered from patent arbitrariness, as the Assessing Officer failed to consider the evidence already on record and made the addition on incorrect information. Since the jurisdictional defects and the merits were both in favour of the assessee, the Court quashed the reassessment instead of remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer. (WP No. 6094 of 2023, dt. 20-07-2026). (AY. 2018 -19 )