Devkant Synthetics India Pvt. Ltd. v. National Faceless Assessment Centre & Ors.

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

For AY 2013-14, the assessee had supplied demat details, Form 10 DB, scrip-wise material and reconciliation during scrutiny. Reopening later relied on transaction information alleged to be undisclosed. The earlier section 263 exercise concerned a limited section 14 A issue.

Source: PDF p. 5

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

The Court found the relevant transaction material had been supplied and that Revenue did not deny the demat and reconciliation disclosures. Beyond four years, the asserted failure to disclose was contrary to that record; reopening also amounted to change of opinion.

Source: PDF p. 12

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

The impugned notice, reassessment order dated 26 March 2022 and consequential demand and penalty notices were quashed as without jurisdiction.

Source: PDF p. 13

4. OUTCOME

The assessee succeeded on reassessment jurisdiction; the judgment does not establish that every future information-system alert is legally irrelevant.

Source: PDF p. 13

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.

Link each alleged omission to the original disclosure

The result rests on the actual demat and reconciliation record. An information-system entry does not establish non-disclosure where the underlying transaction was already furnished and examined.

Source: PDF p. 11

Apply the old first proviso on its own facts

The beyond-four-year condition required failure to disclose fully and truly. The Court found that condition absent; the limited section 263 history did not supply the missing jurisdictional fact.

Source: PDF p. 12

Do not conceal inconsistent source figures and dates

The opening gives a 31 March 2022 notice, while the detailed history gives 31 March 2021; the former conflicts with the 26 March 2022 assessment sequence. The source also gives differing assessed-income figures. No reconciled amount or additional notice is invented here.

Source: PDF p. 6