Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the notice reopening the assessment beyond four years and the order rejecting objections were valid when the material relating to share application money had already been examined in the original scrutiny assessment.
Analysis: The assessment was originally completed under scrutiny after the assessee had furnished the relevant details, including particulars of the share applicants, their addresses, PAN details, allotment particulars, board resolutions, and supporting documents. The reasons recorded for reopening were based on the same material and on a subsequent reappraisal of the very issue already considered. In the absence of any new tangible material, and where the conditions attached to reopening beyond four years required failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts, the attempt to reopen amounted only to a change of opinion and an impermissible fishing inquiry.
Conclusion: The reopening was invalid and the assessee succeeded on the issue.
Final Conclusion: The reassessment notice and the consequential rejection of objections were quashed, and the petition was allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the material facts relating to an issue were fully disclosed and examined in the original scrutiny assessment, reassessment beyond four years cannot be sustained on the same material in the absence of new tangible information, as such action would amount to a mere change of opinion.