Reopening after section 143(1) processing and deemed dividend treatment of a doubtful land-sale advance upheld.

An intimation under section 143(1) does not amount to a merits-based assessment, so reopening under section 147 is not barred as a mere change of opinion when escapement of income is noticed. The reassessment was therefore valid. On the merits, a purported land-sale advance from a closely held company was held to be unsupported by the surrounding facts: the agreement was unregistered, the transaction was not reflected in the company's books, obligations were not performed, and the amount remained with the assessee for years. The sum was accordingly treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was invalid as being based on a change of opinion where the original processing was only under section 143(1); (ii) Whether the sum of Rs. 17,50,000 received by the assessee from a closely held company was an advance for a proposed land sale or assessable as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e).

Issue (i): Whether reassessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was invalid as being based on a change of opinion where the original processing was only under section 143(1).

Analysis: An intimation under section 143(1) is not an assessment on merits and does not involve formation of an opinion. Therefore, reopening on the basis of material leading to escapement of income cannot be assailed as a mere change of opinion. The authorities relied on by the assessee were distinguishable because they dealt with completed scrutiny assessments under section 143(3).

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were valid and this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the sum of Rs. 17,50,000 received by the assessee from a closely held company was an advance for a proposed land sale or assessable as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e).

Analysis: The purported agreement to sell and surrounding circumstances created serious doubts about the genuineness of the alleged commercial transaction. The document was unregistered, the stamp paper circumstances were suspicious, the transaction was not reflected in the company's books, the obligations under the agreement were not acted upon, and the amount was retained for years even after the alleged sale could not materialise. On the facts, the claim of a trade advance was held to be unsupported and contrary to human probabilities.

Conclusion: The amount was rightly assessed as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) and this issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both the jurisdictional challenge and the merits, and the addition made by the lower authorities was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a return has only been processed under section 143(1), reopening is not barred by change of opinion, and a payment routed through a doubtful land-sale arrangement may be treated as deemed dividend if the surrounding facts show that it is a loan or advance from a closely held company.

---