Sanjyot Jay Sheth Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
Pune ITAT Quashes Reassessment as Reasons in Section 148A(b) and 148A(d) Differed; Notice Also Held Time-Barred under Rajeev Bansal
The Pune ITAT quashed the reassessment proceedings holding that the Assessing Officer fundamentally altered the basis of reopening between the notice issued under section 148A(b) and the order passed under section 148A(d), thereby denying the assessee a meaningful opportunity to respond. The Tribunal observed that while the initial notice alleged escapement relating to the sale of an immovable property, the final order proceeded on an entirely different allegation concerning taxability under section 56(2)(vii)(b) arising from purchase of immovable properties at a value lower than the stamp duty value. Since these new allegations were never put to the assessee through a fresh notice under section 148A(b), the reassessment proceedings were held to be vitiated for violation of the statutory procedure and principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal relied upon several decisions including Usha Rani Girdhar (Delhi High Court), Excel Commodity and Derivative Pvt. Ltd. (Calcutta High Court), Akshar Builders & Developers (Bombay High Court) and Arvind Sahdeo Gupta (Bombay High Court) to reiterate that the Assessing Officer cannot substitute or change the very foundation of reopening after issuance of the section 148A(b) notice without giving the assessee a fresh opportunity to explain the revised allegations.
