Vijay Kumar Aggarwal v. ITO [I.T.A. No. 2338/Del/2017, dt. 21-12-2020] : 2020 TaxPub(DT) 5593 (Del-Trib)

Re-assessment made on same points wherein the earlier post-search assessment made being held void -- Validity

Facts:

Assessee was subject to a scrutiny assessment arising out of certain evidence unearthed in a search and thus was saddled with additions. On higher appeal it was held that the said search/scrutiny assessment was held to be void ab initio by the Commissioner (Appeals) as no valid notice under section 143(2) was issued within the limitation. The departmental appeal was pending before the ITAT on the same. Meanwhile the assessing officer initiated reassessment proceedings on protective basis to safeguard revenue based on the same search evidences well within time under section 147 & 148. The assessee questioned the validity of this reassessment before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the views of the assessing officer. On higher appeal --

Held against the assessee that the reassessment proceedings were valid for the following reasons --

(i) Pendency of departmental appeal in the earlier order was no bar to claim validity of the reassessment.

(ii) Merely because the same evidences and facts were used in the reassessment, it cannot be held invalid.

(iii) The normal assessment and the reassessment are separate proceedings.

(iv) Material obtained in the search can be put to use in different assessments there is no bar on revenue to use it thus.

(v) The limitation for reassessment was very much alive and active.

Upheld: Krishna Developers & Company v. DCIT (2018) 400 ITR 260 (Guj.) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 2073 (Guj-HC) -- SLP on this by assessee dismissed vide Krishna Developers & Co. v. DCIT-II reported in (2018) 254 Taxman 125 (SC) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 0691 (SC).

Dissented: Metro Auto Corporation v. ITO (2006) 286 ITR 618 (Bom.) : 2006 TaxPub(DT) 1767 (Bom-HC)

Smt. Anchi Devi C/o. M/s. Vikas WSP v. CIT (2008) 3 TMI 49 (P&H-HC) : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 1828 (P&H-HC)