TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Reopening assessment over alleged bogus equity investments quashed for relying on different reasons and changing goalposts</h1> Dominant issue: validity of assessment reopening where reasons for reopening and ultimate additions diverged (alleged bogus purchases/investments) and the ... Validity of reopening of assessment - Change of opinion - addition of bogus purchases - case of the assessee is that assessee has not made any investment in equity shares. HELD THAT:- There is a complete variation and divergence of issues on the basis of which the case was reopened, assessee was called upon by notice u/s 148A(b) to explain the reasons for reopening and the ultimate conclusions drawn in order u/s 148A(d) and in the final assessment order. Such an action of ‘change of goalpost’ has been held to vitiate the whole of the assessment proceedings and reliance for this is rightly placed in the case of Catchy Prop Build Private Limited [2022 (10) TMI 771 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and USHA RANI GIRDHAR VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 36 (1), DELHI & ORS. [2022 (12) TMI 546 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment initiated under sections 147/148 read with section 144B and preceded by notices under section 148A(b) and order under section 148A(d) was valid where the issues in the final assessment differed from those indicated in the reopening notices; (ii) Whether notice under section 148 was permissible in the absence of 'information' as defined in Explanation 1 to section 148 (first proviso to section 148).Issue (i): Whether the reassessment proceedings were vitiated by a change of allegations between the reopening notice / section 148A proceedings and the ultimate assessment.Analysis: The reopening notice and the proceedings under section 148A(b)/(d) identified a particular basis for reopening. The subsequent assessment advanced materially different allegations and treated purchases as bogus without that issue being the foundation of the section 148A notice and enquiry. Such divergence constitutes a change of the factual/legal basis on which the case was reopened and results in a shift of the goalposts during assessment proceedings.Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings are vitiated for change of goalpost and the assessment founded on that altered basis is unsustainable in favour of the assessee.Issue (ii): Whether issuance of notice under section 148 was valid in the absence of 'information' as per Explanation 1 to section 148.Analysis: The statutory scheme requires existence of 'information' as defined in Explanation 1 to section 148 before issuance of a notice under section 148 (first proviso). The proceedings record did not establish such information forming the basis for the notice; consequently the jurisdictional precondition for reopening was not satisfied.Conclusion: The notice under section 148 was issued without satisfying the requirement of 'information' under Explanation 1 and therefore the reassessment is invalid, favouring the assessee.Final Conclusion: Both issues being decided against the Revenue, the appeal is allowed and the impugned assessment is quashed.Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment under section 147/148 is invalid if (a) the notice under section 148 is issued without 'information' as defined in Explanation 1 to section 148, or (b) the assessing process changes the factual/legal basis after section 148A proceedings such that there is a material change of the issues (change of goalpost), and such defects vitiate the reassessment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
