ACIT -14(1)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. LUPIN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 6386/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITA No. 5941/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2010-11 AND ITA No. 5952/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2010 ACIT-14(1)(1) Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 432, Aaykar 159, CST Road, Vidyanagari S.O. Vs. Bhavan, Mumbai-400020, Mumbai-400098, Maharashtra. Maharashtra. PAN NO. AAACL1070G Appellant Respondent

C.O. No. 255/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2009-10 (Arising from ITA 6386/MUM/2026) AND C.O. No. 248/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2010-11 (Arising from ITA 5941/MUM/2026)

Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd. ACIT-14(1)(1) 159, CST Road, Vidyanagari Room No. 432, Aaykar Bhavan, S.O. Mumbai-400098, Vs. Mumbai-400020, Maharashtra. Maharashtra. PAN NO. AAACL1070G Appellant Respondent

ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO 2 248, 255/MUM/2026 Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd. Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd.

Assessee by Assessee by : Shri Rajan Vora, CA & Ms Palak Rajan Vora, CA & Ms Palak Mehta, CA : Shri Manoj Kumar (CIT Revenue by by Manoj Kumar (CIT-DR) & Shri Surendra Mohan (SR.DR.) Surendra Mohan (SR.DR.). : 17/09/2026 Date of Hearing Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement Date of pronouncement : 25/09/2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

The captioned appeals by the Revenue and cross appeals by the Revenue and cross appeals by the Revenue and cross-objections by the assessee are directed against two separate orders dated 26th the assessee are directed against two separate orders dated 26th the assessee are directed against two separate orders dated 26th March 2026 and 30th March 2026 March 2026 and 30th March 2026 passed by the ld CIT(A) passed by the ld CIT(A) for assessment years 2009 assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. 11 respectively. All the appeals and cross objecti appeals and cross objection being connected with one respondent, on being connected with one respondent, were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for sake of convenience and avoid repetition of facts. order for sake of convenience and avoid repetition of facts. order for sake of convenience and avoid repetition of facts. 2. The learned Departmental R The learned Departmental Representative(DR) (DR) submitted that the appeal in ITA number 5 the appeal in ITA number 5952/Mum/2026 is duplicate appeal for is duplicate appeal for assessment year 2010 assessment year 2010-11, filed inadvertently in wrong wrong name of respondent, namely, Privilege Health Care Services Private Limited. , namely, Privilege Health Care Services Private Limited. , namely, Privilege Health Care Services Private Limited. Accordingly, at the instance of the ld. DR, and there being no the instance of the ld. DR, and there being no the instance of the ld. DR, and there being no objection from the other side, the said appeal is dismissed as objection from the other side, the said appeal is dismissed as objection from the other side, the said appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO 3 248, 255/MUM/2026 Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd. Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd.

“1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in 1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in 1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the reassessment proceedings under section 147 are on the ground holding that the reassessment proceedings under section 147 are on the ground holding that the reassessment proceedings under section 147 are on the ground that the issue of share application money had alre that the issue of share application money had already been examined during ady been examined during original assessment under section 143(3), thereby treating the reopening as a original assessment under section 143(3), thereby treating the reopening as a original assessment under section 143(3), thereby treating the reopening as a case of change of opinion change of opinion. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding the lack of DIN and digital signature DIN and digital signature as serious legal infirmities when as serious legal infirmities when the same are curable defects. the same are curable defects. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in quashing the reassessment proceedings by holding that there was no fresh quashing the reassessment proceedings by holding that there was quashing the reassessment proceedings by holding that there was tangible material, tangible material, ignoring that the reopening was based on information and reopening was based on information and directions received from appellate authority i.e. CIT(A). directions received from appellate authority i.e. CIT(A). 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee on account of adoption of base income at allowing the appeal of the assessee on account of adoption of base income at allowing the appeal of the assessee on account of adoption of base income at Rs.5.39 Crores ignoring the facts that the AO has computed the assessed income Rs.5.39 Crores ignoring the facts that the AO has computed the assessed income Rs.5.39 Crores ignoring the facts that the AO has computed the assessed income on the basis of records available in the system and relevant assessment orders on the basis of records available in the system and relevant assessment orders on the basis of records available in the system and relevant assessment orders pertaining to the assessee and its predecessor entity taking into account the pertaining to the assessee and its predecessor entity taking into account the pertaining to the assessee and its predecessor entity taking into account the amalgamation and co amalgamation and continuity of proceedings. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made under section 68 of the IT Act, 1961 at deleting the addition made under section 68 of the IT Act, 1961 at deleting the addition made under section 68 of the IT Act, 1961 at Rs.8,98,00,000/- by accepting the assessee's explanation without properly by accepting the assessee's explanation without properly by accepting the assessee's explanation without properly appreciating that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving ting that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving ting that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving genuineness of the said share application money transactions." genuineness of the said share application money transactions." genuineness of the said share application money transactions." 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made under section 68 of t deleting the addition made under section 68 of the IT Act, 1961 at Rs, he IT Act, 1961 at Rs, 8,98,00,000/- by accepting the assessee's explanation without properly by accepting the assessee's explanation without properly by accepting the assessee's explanation without properly appreciating that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving appreciating that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving appreciating that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving genuineness of the said share application money transactions." genuineness of the said share application money transactions." genuineness of the said share application money transactions." 7. On the facts and circumst 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the ground of the assessee on charging of interest u/s 234B of the IT allowing the ground of the assessee on charging of interest u/s 234B of the IT allowing the ground of the assessee on charging of interest u/s 234B of the IT Act, 1961 ignoring the facts that the addition made by the AO is sustainable in Act, 1961 ignoring the facts that the addition made by the AO is sustainable in Act, 1961 ignoring the facts that the addition made by the AO is sustainable in law and on facts.

ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO 4 248, 255/MUM/2026 Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd. Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd.

“Objections to Department's Appeal “Objections to Department's Appeal Reassessment proceedings not valid in case of change of opinion Reassessment proceedings not valid in case of change of opinion Reassessment proceedings not valid in case of change of opinion 1. erred in objecting to the Ld. CIT(A) order 1. erred in objecting to the Ld. CIT(A) order wherein it held that reopening of wherein it held that reopening of assessment is invalid on the basis of change of opinion without any new tangible assessment is invalid on the basis of change of opinion without any new tangible assessment is invalid on the basis of change of opinion without any new tangible material and without appreciating the fact that the receipt of share application material and without appreciating the fact that the receipt of share application material and without appreciating the fact that the receipt of share application money has been adjudicated by the Assessing Officer during the course of money has been adjudicated by the Assessing Officer during t money has been adjudicated by the Assessing Officer during t regular assessment proceedings thereby rendering the reassessment proceedings regular assessment proceedings thereby rendering the reassessment proceedings regular assessment proceedings thereby rendering the reassessment proceedings initiated without any new material is bad in law; initiated without any new material is bad in law; Reopening assessment on the basis of borrowed satisfaction: Reopening assessment on the basis of borrowed satisfaction: Reopening assessment on the basis of borrowed satisfaction: 2. erred in objecting to the Ld. CIT(A) order wherein i 2. erred in objecting to the Ld. CIT(A) order wherein it is held that reopening the t is held that reopening the assessment proceedings and passing order under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the assessment proceedings and passing order under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the assessment proceedings and passing order under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 31 March 2022 on the basis of CIT(A) order in Appellant's own case for Act dated 31 March 2022 on the basis of CIT(A) order in Appellant's own case for Act dated 31 March 2022 on the basis of CIT(A) order in Appellant's own case for AY 2012-13 without any independent application of mind would lead t 13 without any independent application of mind would lead to borrowed 13 without any independent application of mind would lead t satisfaction leading to entire reassessment proceedings being bad in law; satisfaction leading to entire reassessment proceedings being bad in law; satisfaction leading to entire reassessment proceedings being bad in law; Validity of reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Act: Validity of reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Act: Validity of reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Act: 3. erred in objecting to the Ld. CIT(A) order wherein it is held that issuing 3. erred in objecting to the Ld. CIT(A) order wherein it is held that issuing 3. erred in objecting to the Ld. CIT(A) order wherein it is held that issuing reassessment notice unde reassessment notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 10 April 2021 without r Section 148 of the Act dated 10 April 2021 without adhering to the procedure laid down under Section 148A of the Act is bad in law adhering to the procedure laid down under Section 148A of the Act is bad in law adhering to the procedure laid down under Section 148A of the Act is bad in law and thereby leading to invalid reassessment proceedings and consequent and thereby leading to invalid reassessment proceedings and consequent and thereby leading to invalid reassessment proceedings and consequent reassessment order dated 31 March 2022 being bad in reassessment order dated 31 March 2022 being bad in law and liable to be law and liable to be quashed; Erroneous consideration of income assessed in the hands of the Erroneous consideration of income assessed in the hands of the Erroneous consideration of income assessed in the hands of the Appellant: 4. erred in objecting to the Ld. CIT(A) order where it has been held that the Ld. AO 4. erred in objecting to the Ld. CIT(A) order where it has been held that the Ld. AO 4. erred in objecting to the Ld. CIT(A) order where it has been held that the Ld. AO has failed to establish proper justification and reconciliation for adoption of has failed to establish proper justification and reconciliation for has failed to establish proper justification and reconciliation for income of Rs. 5.39 crores, which in fact is the income assessed in the hands of income of Rs. 5.39 crores, which in fact is the income assessed in the hands of income of Rs. 5.39 crores, which in fact is the income assessed in the hands of Appellant's successor entity (i.e. Lupin Investments Private Limited) instead of the Appellant's successor entity (i.e. Lupin Investments Private Limited) instead of the Appellant's successor entity (i.e. Lupin Investments Private Limited) instead of the original entity (i.e. Lupin Properties Limited); original entity (i.e. Lupin Properties Limited);

ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO 5 248, 255/MUM/2026 Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd. Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd.

Issuance of assessment order Issuance of assessment order in violation to the CBDT Instruction No. in violation to the CBDT Instruction No. 8/2017 dated 29 September 2017 and CBDT Circular 19/2019 dated 14 September 2017 and CBDT Circular 19/2019 dated 14 September 2017 and CBDT Circular 19/2019 dated 14 August 2019 5. erred in objecting to the Ld. CIT(A) order wherein it has been held that the 5. erred in objecting to the Ld. CIT(A) order wherein it has been held that the 5. erred in objecting to the Ld. CIT(A) order wherein it has been held that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with se assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with se dated 31 March 2022 ignores the binding CBDT instructions [viz CBDT Instruction dated 31 March 2022 ignores the binding CBDT instructions [viz CBDT Instruction dated 31 March 2022 ignores the binding CBDT instructions [viz CBDT Instruction No. 8/2017 dated 29 September 2017; CBDT Instruction No. 1/2018 dated 12 No. 8/2017 dated 29 September 2017; CBDT Instruction No. 1/2018 dated 12 No. 8/2017 dated 29 September 2017; CBDT Instruction No. 1/2018 dated 12 February 2018; and Letter (F. No. System/ITBA/Digital Signature/16-17/181) February 2018; and Letter (F. No. System/ITBA/Digital Signature/16 February 2018; and Letter (F. No. System/ITBA/Digital Signature/16 dated 16 6 6 February February February 2018] 2018] 2018] which which which requires requires requires all all all the the the department department department orders/communications/ notices being issued through the 'e orders/communications/ notices being issued through the 'e-proceeding' facility to proceeding' facility to be signed digitally, and hence, the assessment order dated 31 March 2022 be signed digitally, and hence, the assessment order dated 31 March 2022 be signed digitally, and hence, the assessment order dated 31 March 2022 passed is invalid and liable to be quashed; passed is invalid and liable to be quashed; 6. erred in objecting to the Ld. CIT(A) order wherein it has been held that the red in objecting to the Ld. CIT(A) order wherein it has been held that the red in objecting to the Ld. CIT(A) order wherein it has been held that the assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act dated 31 assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act dated 31 assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act dated 31 March 2022 has been passed without adhering to the requirements enshrined in March 2022 has been passed without adhering to the requirements enshrined in March 2022 has been passed without adhering to the requirements enshrined in the CBDT Circular 19/201 the CBDT Circular 19/2019 dated 14 August 2019 manually signed and a 9 dated 14 August 2019 manually signed and a manual DIN has been communicated separately without obtaining the approval manual DIN has been communicated separately without obtaining manual DIN has been communicated separately without obtaining from the learned Chief Commissioner/Director General of Income Tax, thereby from the learned Chief Commissioner/Director General of Income Tax, thereby from the learned Chief Commissioner/Director General of Income Tax, thereby rendering the assessment order dated 31 March 2022 null and void and deemed rendering the assessment order dated 31 March 2022 null and rendering the assessment order dated 31 March 2022 null and to have been never issued, and hence the assessment order issued is bad in law to have been never issued, and hence the assessment order issued is bad in law to have been never issued, and hence the assessment order issued is bad in law and liable to be quashed; and liable to be quashed; No failure on part of Assessee to disclose truly and fully material facts: No failure on part of Assessee to disclose truly and fully material facts: No failure on part of Assessee to disclose truly and fully material facts: 7. erred in objecting to the CIT(A) order wherein it is held that reopening the 7. erred in objecting to the CIT(A) order wherein it is held 7. erred in objecting to the CIT(A) order wherein it is held assessment after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year under assessment after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year under assessment after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year under section 147 of the Act without there being failure on part of the Assessee to truly section 147 of the Act without there being failure on part of the Assessee to truly section 147 of the Act without there being failure on part of the Assessee to truly and fully disclose all material facts during the course of original assessment and fully disclose all material facts during the course of original asses and fully disclose all material facts during the course of original asses proceedings leads to entire reassessment proceedings being bad in law, proceedings leads to entire reassessment proceedings being bad in law, proceedings leads to entire reassessment proceedings being bad in law, Addition made under section 68 of the Act in respect of share application Addition made under section 68 of the Act in respect of share application Addition made under section 68 of the Act in respect of share application money: 8. erred in objecting the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition in respect of 8. erred in objecting the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition in respect of 8. erred in objecting the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition in respect of share application money without appreciating that the Assessee has provided application money without appreciating that the Assessee has provided application money without appreciating that the Assessee has provided sufficient explanation about the nature and source of the credit (i.e. share sufficient explanation about the nature and source of the credit (i.e. share sufficient explanation about the nature and source of the credit (i.e. share application money) in the books of accounts, and thereby making the impugned application money) in the books of accounts, and thereby making the impugned application money) in the books of accounts, and thereby making the impugned addition as bad-in-law; law; 9. erred in objecting to CIT(A) order deleting the addition in respect of share in objecting to CIT(A) order deleting the addition in respect of share in objecting to CIT(A) order deleting the addition in respect of share application money on account of failing to establish the genuineness of the application money on account of failing to establish the genuineness of the application money on account of failing to establish the genuineness of the transaction to the satisfaction of the assessing officer without appreciating that transaction to the satisfaction of the assessing officer without appreciating that transaction to the satisfaction of the assessing officer without appreciating that the Assessing Officer has the Assessing Officer has neither conducted any independent enquiry nor brought neither conducted any independent enquiry nor brought any cogent material on record to disprove the evidences furnished by the any cogent material on record to disprove the evidences furnished by the any cogent material on record to disprove the evidences furnished by the Assessee during the course of assessment proceedings; Assessee during the course of assessment proceedings;

ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO 6 248, 255/MUM/2026 Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd. Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd.

Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 10. erred in objecting to Ld. CIT(A) order deleting the penalty under section erred in objecting to Ld. CIT(A) order deleting the penalty under section erred in objecting to Ld. CIT(A) order deleting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating that the additions made by the Ld. AO 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating that the additions made by the Ld. AO 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating that the additions made by the Ld. AO has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). thus, there being no quantum addition, no has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). thus, there being no quantum addition, no has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). thus, there being no quantum addition, no penalty can be initiated penalty can be initiated; Levy if interest under Section 234B of the Act Levy if interest under Section 234B of the Act 11. erred in objecting to Ld. CIT(A) order deleting the interest under Section 234B 11. erred in objecting to Ld. CIT(A) order deleting the interest under Section 234B 11. erred in objecting to Ld. CIT(A) order deleting the interest under Section 234B of the Act without appreciating that the same is consequential in nature; of the Act without appreciating that the same is consequential in nature; of the Act without appreciating that the same is consequential in nature; Assessee's Additional Grounds: Assessee's Additional Grounds: Reopening of asses Reopening of assessment is barred by limitation: 12. without prejudice to the above without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding , the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO in assuming jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act by the action of the Ld. AO in assuming jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act by the action of the Ld. AO in assuming jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 10 April 2021 for year under issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 10 April 2021 f issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 10 April 2021 f consideration, without considering the fact that time limit prescribed under consideration, without considering the fact that time limit prescribed under consideration, without considering the fact that time limit prescribed under Section 149 for reopening the assessment for the year under consideration had Section 149 for reopening the assessment for the year under consideration had Section 149 for reopening the assessment for the year under consideration had already expired prior to CIT(A) order for AY 2012 already expired prior to CIT(A) order for AY 2012-13 dated 18 February 2020; 13 dated 18 February 2020; 13. without prejudice to the above t prejudice to the above, the leamed CIT(A) has erred in upholding , the leamed CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO in invoking Section 150(1) of the Act, ignoring the express the action of the Ld. AO in invoking Section 150(1) of the Act, ignoring the express the action of the Ld. AO in invoking Section 150(1) of the Act, ignoring the express embargo contained under Section 150(2) of the Act, as on the date of CIT(A) order embargo contained under Section 150(2) of the Act, as on the date of CIT(A) order embargo contained under Section 150(2) of the Act, as on the date of CIT(A) order for AY 2012-13, the re 13, the reopening of assessment under Section 148 for year under opening of assessment under Section 148 for year under consideration could not be made as time limit available under Section 149 for the consideration could not be made as time limit available under Section 149 for the consideration could not be made as time limit available under Section 149 for the said year had already expired and said reopening is beyond time period and said year had already expired and said reopening is beyond time period and said year had already expired and said reopening is beyond time period and liable to be quashed; liable to be quashed; Validity of reassessme Validity of reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Act: nt notice issued under Section 148 of the Act: 14. without prejudice to the above without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding , the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO without appreciating that the jurisdictional assessing the action of the Ld. AO without appreciating that the jurisdictional assessing the action of the Ld. AO without appreciating that the jurisdictional assessing officer did not have jurisdiction to issue such not officer did not have jurisdiction to issue such notice after the introduction of E ice after the introduction of E- assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 notified under section assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 notified under section assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 notified under section 151A of the Act, thereby rendering the impugned notice under section 148 as 151A of the Act, thereby rendering the impugned notice under section 148 as 151A of the Act, thereby rendering the impugned notice under section 148 as invalid and bad in law; invalid and bad in law;” 5. Briefly stated facts of the case are that y stated facts of the case are that the assessee, Lupin he assessee, Lupin Investments Private Limited, is the successor to Lupin Properties Investments Private Limited, is the successor to Lupin Properties Investments Private Limited, is the successor to Lupin Properties Limited. The assessee Limited. The assessee was engaged, inter-alia, in mall management, , in mall management, leasing of properties and investment activities. Lupin Properties leasing of properties and investment activities. Lupin Properties leasing of properties and investment activities. Lupin Properties

ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO 7 248, 255/MUM/2026 Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd. Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd.

Limited was subsequently amalgamated with Lupin Investments Limited was subsequently amalgamated with Lupin Investments Limited was subsequently amalgamated with Lupin Investments Private Limited with effect from 1 October 2016 pursuant to an Private Limited with effect from 1 October 2016 pursuant to an Private Limited with effect from 1 October 2016 pursuant to an order of the National Company Law Tribunal, and the present order of the National Company Law Tribunal, and the present order of the National Company Law Tribunal, and the present proceedings are being pursued by the successor entity. proceedings are being pursued by the successor entity. proceedings are being pursued by the successor entity.

5.1 The return of income for the Assessment Year 2010 income for the Assessment Year 2010-11 was income for the Assessment Year 2010 filed by M/s Lupin Properties Limited by M/s Lupin Properties Limited on 30.09.2010 declaring total on 30.09.2010 declaring total income of Rs.58,81,491 under normal provisions income of Rs.58,81,491 under normal provisions of Income of Income-tax Act, 1961 ( in short the ‘Act’) in short the ‘Act’) and book profit under section 115JB and book profit under section 115JB of the Act. The return was processed under section 143(1) and return was processed under section 143(1) and return was processed under section 143(1) and subsequently selected for scrutiny. Assessment under section subsequently selected for scrutiny. Assessment under section subsequently selected for scrutiny. Assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 31.03.2013 determining income at 143(3) was completed on 31.03.2013 determining income at 143(3) was completed on 31.03.2013 determining income at Rs.59,38,890 with an n addition of Rs.82,000 on account of notional addition of Rs.82,000 on account of notional interest.

5.2 Thereafter, the reassessment proceedings were initiated on the the reassessment proceedings were initiated on the the reassessment proceedings were initiated on the issue issue issue of of of share share share application application application money money money pursuant pursuant pursuant to to to observations/directions emanating from first appellate proceedings observations/directions emanating from first appellate proceedings observations/directions emanating from first appellate proceedings for Assessment Year 2012 for Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessing officer issued notice 13. The Assessing officer issued notice u/s 148 on 16/03/2021 2021 and thereafter another notice u/s 148 was and thereafter another notice u/s 148 was issued on 10/04/2021 2021. Before us the ld Counsel for the assessee . Before us the ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that notice dated submitted that notice dated 16/03/2021 was issued on nonexistent was issued on nonexistent entity so same was dropped and another notice was issued in entity so same was dropped and another notice was issued in entity so same was dropped and another notice was issued in 10/04/2021.

ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO 8 248, 255/MUM/2026 Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd. Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd.

5.3 During reassessment, the Assessing Officer examined share reassessment, the Assessing Officer examined share reassessment, the Assessing Officer examined share application money of Rs. 10,75,00,000 received from group application money of Rs. 10,75,00,000 received from group application money of Rs. 10,75,00,000 received from group concerns, including M/s including M/s Lupin Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and Visiomed Lupin Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and Visiomed India Pvt. Ltd. The India Pvt. Ltd. The assessee submitted that the identity and submitted that the identity and creditworthiness of t creditworthiness of the investors were duly established through he investors were duly established through PAN, audited financial statements, and bank statements, and that PAN, audited financial statements, and bank statements, and that PAN, audited financial statements, and bank statements, and that the transactions were routed through banking channels. It was the transactions were routed through banking channels. It was the transactions were routed through banking channels. It was further submitted that the source of funds of the investors was further submitted that the source of funds of the investors was further submitted that the source of funds of the investors was primarily dividend inc primarily dividend income received from Lupin Limited, and that ome received from Lupin Limited, and that the share application money had already been examined and the share application money had already been examined and the share application money had already been examined and accepted in original assessment proceedings. The assessee also accepted in original assessment proceedings. The accepted in original assessment proceedings. The furnished valuation working and explained that the provisions furnished valuation working and explained that the provisions furnished valuation working and explained that the provisions relating to share premium under relating to share premium under section 56(2)(vii)(b) and amended b) and amended section 68 were not applicable to the year under consideration. section 68 were not applicable to the year under consideration. section 68 were not applicable to the year under consideration. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the submissions, held that However, the Assessing Officer rejected the submissions, held that However, the Assessing Officer rejected the submissions, held that the valuation lacked proper basis, and treated the entire amount of the valuation lacked proper basis, and treated the entire amount of the valuation lacked proper basis, and treated the entire amount of Rs. 10,75,00,000 as un Rs. 10,75,00,000 as unexplained cash credit under section 68, explained cash credit under section 68, thereby completing reassessment under section 143(3) read with thereby completing reassessment under section 143(3) read with thereby completing reassessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 on 29.09.2021 determining total income at Rs. section 147 on 29.09.2021 determining total income at Rs. section 147 on 29.09.2021 determining total income at Rs. 11,34,38,892.

ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO 9 248, 255/MUM/2026 Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd. Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd.

the Assessing Officer the Assessing Officer in the course of the original assessment in the course of the original assessment proceedings under section 143(3). It was submitted that the proceedings under section 143(3). It was submitted that the proceedings under section 143(3). It was submitted that the Assessing Officer had called for specific information regarding the Assessing Officer had called for specific information regarding the Assessing Officer had called for specific information regarding the shareholders and share application money; that the assessee had shareholders and share application money; that the assessee had shareholders and share application money; that the assessee had furnished the requisit furnished the requisite details and supporting evidence; and that e details and supporting evidence; and that the Assessing Officer, after making further enquiries, had accepted the Assessing Officer, after making further enquiries, had accepted the Assessing Officer, after making further enquiries, had accepted the transactions without making any addition under section 68. It the transactions without making any addition under section 68. It the transactions without making any addition under section 68. It was, therefore, contended that the subsequent reopening amounted was, therefore, contended that the subsequent reopening amounted was, therefore, contended that the subsequent reopening amounted merely to a review of the assessment already completed and was eview of the assessment already completed and was eview of the assessment already completed and was consequently barred by the principle against change of opinion. It consequently barred by the principle against change of opinion. consequently barred by the principle against change of opinion. was further contended that the reassessment proceedings were was further contended that the reassessment proceedings were was further contended that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without following the procedure prescribed under section initiated without following the procedure prescribed under section initiated without following the procedure prescribed under section 148A.

6.1 The learned CIT(A), accepting the said contention, held the The learned CIT(A), accepting the said contention, held the The learned CIT(A), accepting the said contention, held the reassessment proceedings to be unsustainable and also deleted the reassessment proceedings to be unsustainable and also deleted the reassessment proceedings to be unsustainable and also deleted the addition made under section 68 addition made under section 68 on merit observing as under: on merit observing as under:

“4. Analysis & Adjudication: 4. Analysis & Adjudication:- 4.1. Ground Nos. 1 to 3: Validity of Ass 4.1. Ground Nos. 1 to 3: Validity of Assessment Order due to DIN Defect essment Order due to DIN Defect I have carefully considered the facts of the case, assessment order, and detailed I have carefully considered the facts of the case, assessment order, and detailed I have carefully considered the facts of the case, assessment order, and detailed submissions of the appellant. The appellant has contended that the assessment submissions of the appellant. The appellant has contended that the assessment submissions of the appellant. The appellant has contended that the assessment order, notice of demand, and computation sheet are invalid due to alleged defect order, notice of demand, and computation sheet are invalid due to alleged defect order, notice of demand, and computation sheet are invalid due to alleged defect in Document Identification Number (DIN) and non ntification Number (DIN) and non-compliance with CBDT Circular compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. It is observed from records that the assessment order dated No. 19/2019. It is observed from records that the assessment order dated No. 19/2019. It is observed from records that the assessment order dated 29.09.2021 bears a valid DIN and was communicated through official channels. 29.09.2021 bears a valid DIN and was communicated through official channels. 29.09.2021 bears a valid DIN and was communicated through official channels. The contention of the appellant that separa The contention of the appellant that separate DIN should be generated for each te DIN should be generated for each document is not tenable, as the purpose of DIN is to ensure authenticity and document is not tenable, as the purpose of DIN is to ensure authenticity and document is not tenable, as the purpose of DIN is to ensure authenticity and traceability of communication, which stands fulfilled in the present case. Further, traceability of communication, which stands fulfilled in the present case. Further, traceability of communication, which stands fulfilled in the present case. Further,

ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO 10 248, 255/MUM/2026 Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd. Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd.

the appellant has participated in assessment proceedings and has not the appellant has participated in assessment proceedings an the appellant has participated in assessment proceedings an demonstrated any prejudice caused due to alleged procedural irregularity. demonstrated any prejudice caused due to alleged procedural irregularity. demonstrated any prejudice caused due to alleged procedural irregularity. It is a settled position of law that procedural defects which do not go to the root of It is a settled position of law that procedural defects which do not go to the root of It is a settled position of law that procedural defects which do not go to the root of jurisdiction do not invalidate assessment proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme jurisdiction do not invalidate assessment proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme jurisdiction do not invalidate assessment proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Jagannath Gupta & Sons (119 ITR 307) and CIT vs. Smt. IT vs. Jagannath Gupta & Sons (119 ITR 307) and CIT vs. Smt. IT vs. Jagannath Gupta & Sons (119 ITR 307) and CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Kochammu Amma (125 ITR 624) P.K. Kochammu Amma (125 ITR 624) has held that technical defects cannot has held that technical defects cannot render proceedings invalid when substantive compliance exists. Further, CBDT render proceedings invalid when substantive compliance exists. Further, CBDT render proceedings invalid when substantive compliance exists. Further, CBDT circulars are directory in nature and cannot o circulars are directory in nature and cannot override statutory provisions. In the verride statutory provisions. In the present case, there is no evidence that the order was issued manually without present case, there is no evidence that the order was issued manually without present case, there is no evidence that the order was issued manually without authorization or outside the system. Accordingly, the objection raised by the authorization or outside the system. Accordingly, the objection raised by the authorization or outside the system. Accordingly, the objection raised by the appellant is devoid of merit and Ground Nos. 1 to 3 are dismissed. appellant is devoid of merit and Ground Nos. 1 to 3 are dismiss appellant is devoid of merit and Ground Nos. 1 to 3 are dismiss 4.2. Ground Nos. 4 to 11: Validity of Reopening u/s 147/148 Sustainable 4.2. Ground Nos. 4 to 11: Validity of Reopening u/s 147/148 Sustainable 4.2. Ground Nos. 4 to 11: Validity of Reopening u/s 147/148 Sustainable in Law Whether Sustainable in Law in Law Whether Sustainable in Law I have carefully considered the assessment order, reasons recorded for I have carefully considered the assessment order, reasons recorded for I have carefully considered the assessment order, reasons recorded for reopening, submissions of the appellant, and the judicial precedents relied upon. reopening, submissions of the appellant, and the judicial precedents relied upon. reopening, submissions of the appellant, and the judicial precedents relied upon. The core issue involved in these grounds pertains to the validity of reopening validity of reopening The core issue involved in these grounds pertains to the of assessment under sect of assessment under section 147, which strikes at the very root of jurisdiction , which strikes at the very root of jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. It is an admitted position that the original assessment in of the Assessing Officer. It is an admitted position that the original assessment in of the Assessing Officer. It is an admitted position that the original assessment in the present case was completed under section 143(3) after due scrutiny, wherein the present case was completed under section 143(3) after due scrutiny, wherein the present case was completed under section 143(3) after due scrutiny, wherein specific queries were raised by the specific queries were raised by the Assessing Officer in respect of share Assessing Officer in respect of share application money received during the relevant previous year. The appellant had application money received during the relevant previous year. The appellant had application money received during the relevant previous year. The appellant had duly furnished complete details including confirmations, ledger accounts, bank duly furnished complete details including confirmations, ledger accounts, bank duly furnished complete details including confirmations, ledger accounts, bank statements, and other supporting documents, which were examined and accepted statements, and other supporting documents, which were exa statements, and other supporting documents, which were exa by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment proceedings. Thus, it is by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment proceedings. Thus, it is by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment proceedings. Thus, it is evident that the issue of share application money was not only within the evident that the issue of share application money was not only within the evident that the issue of share application money was not only within the knowledge of the Assessing Officer but knowledge of the Assessing Officer but was also consciously examined and was also consciously examined and accepted. The reopening has been initiated after a lapse of several years based reopening has been initiated after a lapse of several years based reopening has been initiated after a lapse of several years based on directions issued in a subsequent appellate order for another assessment on directions issued in a subsequent appellate order for another assessment on directions issued in a subsequent appellate order for another assessment year, without bringing any fresh tangible material on record. This clearly year, without bringing any fresh tangible material on record. This clearly year, without bringing any fresh tangible material on record. This clearly establishes that the reopening is base establishes that the reopening is based on reappraisal of existing material, which d on reappraisal of existing material, which is impermissible in law. impermissible in law. It is a settled position of law that where an issue has been examined during It is a settled position of law that where an issue has been examined during It is a settled position of law that where an issue has been examined during original assessment proceedings, reopening on the same issue amounts to original assessment proceedings, reopening on the same issue amounts to original assessment proceedings, reopening on the same issue amounts to change of opinion change of opinion, which is not permissible under section 147. The Hon'ble ssible under section 147. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561) has categorically held that the concept of "change of opinion" must has categorically held that the concept of "change of opinion" must has categorically held that the concept of "change of opinion" must be treated as an in- -built test to check abuse of power by the built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer, and that reopening cannot be based on mere review of earlier decision. In the and that reopening cannot be based on mere review of earlier decision. In the and that reopening cannot be based on mere review of earlier decision. In the present case, there is no allegation that the assessee failed to disclose material present case, there is no allegation that the assessee failed to disclose material present case, there is no allegation that the assessee failed to disclose material facts fully and truly; rather, all primary facts were disclosed and examined facts fully and truly; rather, all primary facts were disclosed and examine facts fully and truly; rather, all primary facts were disclosed and examine during original assessment. The reasons recorded for reopening do not indicate during original assessment. The reasons recorded for reopening do not indicate during original assessment. The reasons recorded for reopening do not indicate any new tangible material but merely refer to earlier proceedings in a different any new tangible material but merely refer to earlier proceedings in a different any new tangible material but merely refer to earlier proceedings in a different

ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO 11 248, 255/MUM/2026 Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd. Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd.

assessment year. This is clearly insufficient to confer jurisdiction under section assessment year. This is clearly insufficient to confer jurisdiction under section assessment year. This is clearly insufficient to confer jurisdiction under section r, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. 147. Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in (348 ITR 485) has held that once a query is raised and answered, even if not has held that once a query is raised and answered, even if not has held that once a query is raised and answered, even if not specifically discussed in the assessment order, it must be presumed that the specifically discussed in the assessment order, it must be presumed that the specifically discussed in the assessment order, it must be presumed that the issue has been examined, and reopen issue has been examined, and reopening on such issue is invalid. ing on such issue is invalid. Further, it is observed that the reopening has been triggered based on directions Further, it is observed that the reopening has been triggered based on Further, it is observed that the reopening has been triggered based on of the learned CIT(A) in proceedings for AY 2012 of the learned CIT(A) in proceedings for AY 2012-13, which itself is not a which itself is not a valid ground for reopening unless supported by independent application of mind valid ground for reopening unless supported by independent applicatio valid ground for reopening unless supported by independent applicatio by the Assessing Officer. The law is well settled that the Assessing Officer must by the Assessing Officer. The law is well settled that the Assessing Officer must by the Assessing Officer. The law is well settled that the Assessing Officer must form his own "reason to believe" based on tangible material and cannot act form his own "reason to believe" based on tangible material and cannot act form his own "reason to believe" based on tangible material and cannot act merely on borrowed satisfaction. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. merely on borrowed satisfaction. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in merely on borrowed satisfaction. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (395 ITR 677) eas Pvt. Ltd. (395 ITR 677) has held that where the has held that where the Assessing Officer merely reproduces information received from another authority Assessing Officer merely reproduces information received from another authority Assessing Officer merely reproduces information received from another authority without independent application of mind, the reopening is invalid. Similarly, in without independent application of mind, the reopening is invalid. Similarly, in without independent application of mind, the reopening is invalid. Similarly, in Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (338 ITR Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (338 ITR 51 Del), it was held that vague it was held that vague and general information cannot form the basis of reopening. In the present case, and general information cannot form the basis of reopening. In the present case, and general information cannot form the basis of reopening. In the present case, the reasons recorded reflect that the Assessing Officer has merely acted upon the reasons recorded reflect that the Assessing Officer has merely acted upon the reasons recorded reflect that the Assessing Officer has merely acted upon directions issued in appellate proceedings of another year, without independently directions issued in appellate proceedings of another year, with directions issued in appellate proceedings of another year, with verifying whether income has actually escaped assessment in the relevant year. verifying whether income has actually escaped assessment in the relevant year. verifying whether income has actually escaped assessment in the relevant year. This clearly amounts to borrowed satisfaction, rendering the reopening invalid. This clearly amounts to borrowed satisfaction, rendering the reopening invalid. This clearly amounts to borrowed satisfaction, rendering the reopening invalid. Another significant aspect raised by the appellant is non non-compliance with Another significant aspect raised by the appellant is procedural requirements under section 148A dural requirements under section 148A, which mandates conducting , which mandates conducting enquiry, providing opportunity, and passing a speaking order before issuing enquiry, providing opportunity, and passing a speaking order before issuing enquiry, providing opportunity, and passing a speaking order before issuing notice under section 148. Though the Assessing Officer has proceeded under pre under section 148. Though the Assessing Officer has proceeded under pre- under section 148. Though the Assessing Officer has proceeded under pre amended provisions, it is evident th amended provisions, it is evident that the reopening notice was issued during the at the reopening notice was issued during the transitional period where applicability of amended provisions has been upheld in transitional period where applicability of amended provisions has been upheld in transitional period where applicability of amended provisions has been upheld in various judicial pronouncements. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India various judicial pronouncements. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judicial pronouncements. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in vs. Ashish Agarwal (444 ITR 1 SC) vs. Ashish Agarwal (444 ITR 1 SC) has emphasized the has emphasized the importance of following due process and safeguarding rights of the assessee in reassessment following due process and safeguarding rights of the assessee in reassessment following due process and safeguarding rights of the assessee in reassessment proceedings. Even otherwise, failure to provide proper reasons, denial of proceedings. Even otherwise, failure to provide proper reasons, denial of proceedings. Even otherwise, failure to provide proper reasons, denial of adequate opportunity, and non adequate opportunity, and non-supply of material relied upon vitiates the supply of material relied upon vitiates the reassessment proceedings as being violative of principles of natural justice. The oceedings as being violative of principles of natural justice. The oceedings as being violative of principles of natural justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO (259 ITR 19) GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO (259 ITR 19) Hon'ble Supreme Court in has held that reasons recorded must be furnished and objections must be has held that reasons recorded must be furnished and objections must be has held that reasons recorded must be furnished and objections must be disposed of by passing a speaking order. I disposed of by passing a speaking order. In the present case, the procedural n the present case, the procedural safeguards have not been adequately complied with, thereby rendering the safeguards have not been adequately complied with, thereby rendering the safeguards have not been adequately complied with, thereby rendering the reopening legally unsustainable. reopening legally unsustainable.

Further, it is observed that the reopening has been made beyond the period of Further, it is observed that the reopening has been made beyond the period of Further, it is observed that the reopening has been made beyond the period of four years from the end of the relev four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. In such cases, the ant assessment year. In such cases, the proviso to section 147 mandates that reopening can be done only where there is proviso to section 147 mandates that reopening can be done only where there is proviso to section 147 mandates that reopening can be done only where there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts

ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO 12 248, 255/MUM/2026 Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd. Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd.

necessary for assessment. In the present case, there i necessary for assessment. In the present case, there is no such allegation in the s no such allegation in the reasons recorded. On the contrary, the records clearly show that all details reasons recorded. On the contrary, the records clearly show that all details reasons recorded. On the contrary, the records clearly show that all details relating to share application money were duly furnished during original relating to share application money were duly furnished during original relating to share application money were duly furnished during original assessment proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd. Hindustan Lever Ltd. assessment proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in vs. R.B. Wadkar (268 ITR 332 Bom HC) .B. Wadkar (268 ITR 332 Bom HC) and several subsequent decisions and several subsequent decisions have held that absence of such allegation renders reopening invalid. The Hon'ble have held that absence of such allegation renders reopening invalid. The Hon'ble have held that absence of such allegation renders reopening invalid. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. vs. ACIT (350 ITR Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. vs. ACIT (350 ITR Gujarat High Court in 266) has also held that where full disc has also held that where full disclosure is made, reopening after four years losure is made, reopening after four years is impermissible. Therefore, the reopening in the present case fails to satisfy the is impermissible. Therefore, the reopening in the present case fails to satisfy the is impermissible. Therefore, the reopening in the present case fails to satisfy the jurisdictional condition prescribed under the proviso to section 147. jurisdictional condition prescribed under the proviso to section 147. jurisdictional condition prescribed under the proviso to section 147. In view of the above detailed analysis, it is clear that the reopening of In view of the above detailed analysis, it is clear that th In view of the above detailed analysis, it is clear that th assessment is vitiated on multiple legal grounds, namely (i) absence of fresh assessment is vitiated on multiple legal grounds, namely (i) absence of fresh assessment is vitiated on multiple legal grounds, namely (i) absence of fresh tangible material, (ii) change of opinion on an issue already examined, (iii) tangible material, (ii) change of opinion on an issue already examined, (iii) tangible material, (ii) change of opinion on an issue already examined, (iii) borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind, (iv) violation of borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind, (iv) violation of borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind, (iv) violation of procedural safeguards, and (v) failure to satisfy conditions for reopening beyond edural safeguards, and (v) failure to satisfy conditions for reopening beyond edural safeguards, and (v) failure to satisfy conditions for reopening beyond four years. These defects go to the root of jurisdiction and render the entire four years. These defects go to the root of jurisdiction and render the entire four years. These defects go to the root of jurisdiction and render the entire reassessment proceedings void ab initio. Accordingly, following the binding reassessment proceedings void ab initio. Accordingly, following the binding reassessment proceedings void ab initio. Accordingly, following the binding judicial precedents of judicial precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, the the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, the reassessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 is hereby reassessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 is hereby reassessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 is hereby held to be invalid and without jurisdiction. held to be invalid and without jurisdiction. 4.3. Ground Nos. 12 to 14: Addition u/s 68 Share Application Money of 4.3. Ground Nos. 12 to 14: Addition u/s 68 Share Application Money of 4.3. Ground Nos. 12 to 14: Addition u/s 68 Share Application Money of Rs. 10,75,00,000 I have carefully considered the assessment order, the submissions of the I have carefully considered the assessment order, the submissions of the I have carefully considered the assessment order, the submissions of the appellant, and the material placed on record. The Assessing Officer has made an appellant, and the material placed on record. The Assessing Officer has made an appellant, and the material placed on record. The Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs. 10,75,00,000 under section 68 treating the share application addition of Rs. 10,75,00,000 under section 68 treating the share application addition of Rs. 10,75,00,000 under section 68 treating the share application money received from M/s Lupin Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Visiomed India Pvt. from M/s Lupin Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Visiomed India Pvt. from M/s Lupin Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Visiomed India Pvt. Ltd. as unexplained cash credits. The addition has been made primarily on the Ltd. as unexplained cash credits. The addition has been made primarily on the Ltd. as unexplained cash credits. The addition has been made primarily on the ground that the appellant failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and ground that the appellant failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and ground that the appellant failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, genuineness of the transactions, and that the valuation of shares at a high and that the valuation of shares at a high premium lacked justification. However, on perusal of the records, it is evident that premium lacked justification. However, on perusal of the records, it is evident that premium lacked justification. However, on perusal of the records, it is evident that the appellant had furnished complete details during both the original assessment the appellant had furnished complete details during both the original assessment the appellant had furnished complete details during both the original assessment proceedings as well as reassessment proceedings proceedings as well as reassessment proceedings, including PAN, confirmations, , including PAN, confirmations, audited financial statements, bank statements, and transaction trail of funds of audited financial statements, bank statements, and transaction trail of funds of audited financial statements, bank statements, and transaction trail of funds of the investor companies. It is also noted that both the investor entities are group the investor companies. It is also noted that both the investor entities are group the investor companies. It is also noted that both the investor entities are group concerns and are duly assessed to tax, and the transactions have been carried concerns and are duly assessed to tax, and the transactions concerns and are duly assessed to tax, and the transactions out through proper banking channels. The source of funds of the investors has out through proper banking channels. The source of funds of the investors has out through proper banking channels. The source of funds of the investors has also been explained as being derived from dividend income received from a listed also been explained as being derived from dividend income received from a listed also been explained as being derived from dividend income received from a listed entity, which has not been controverted by the Assessing Officer with any entity, which has not been controverted by the Assessing Officer with any entity, which has not been controverted by the Assessing Officer with any adverse material. It is a settled position of law that once the assessee discharges its primary onus It is a settled position of law that once the assessee discharges its primary onus It is a settled position of law that once the assessee discharges its primary onus by establishing the identity of the creditor, their creditworthiness, and the by establishing the identity of the creditor, their creditworthiness, and the by establishing the identity of the creditor, their creditworthiness, and the genuineness of the transaction, the burden shifts to the Assessing Officer to bring genuineness of the transaction, the burden shifts to the Assessing Officer to brin genuineness of the transaction, the burden shifts to the Assessing Officer to brin

ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO 13 248, 255/MUM/2026 Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd. Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd.

on record any material to disprove the same. In the present case, the Assessing on record any material to disprove the same. In the present case, the Assessing on record any material to disprove the same. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has not conducted any independent enquiry, nor has he brought any Officer has not conducted any independent enquiry, nor has he brought any Officer has not conducted any independent enquiry, nor has he brought any adverse material to rebut the evidences furnished by the appellant. The Hon'ble adverse material to rebut the evidences furnished by the appellant. The Hon'ble adverse material to rebut the evidences furnished by the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (216 CTR 195) vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (216 CTR 195) has held that where share application money is received from identifiable persons, no that where share application money is received from identifiable persons, no that where share application money is received from identifiable persons, no addition can be made in the hands of the company, and the Department is free to addition can be made in the hands of the company, and the Department is free to addition can be made in the hands of the company, and the Department is free to Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT proceed against the investors. Similarly, the proceed against the investors. Similarly, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (394 ITR 680) has held that share vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (394 ITR 680) vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (394 ITR 680) premium cannot be questioned under section 68 once identity and genuineness premium cannot be questioned under section 68 once identity and genuineness premium cannot be questioned under section 68 once identity and genuineness are established. Further, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Courts have consistently are established. Further, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Courts have cons are established. Further, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Courts have cons held that commercial expediency and valuation of shares are not to be examined held that commercial expediency and valuation of shares are not to be examined held that commercial expediency and valuation of shares are not to be examined by the Assessing Officer under section 68, particularly for years prior to insertion by the Assessing Officer under section 68, particularly for years prior to insertion by the Assessing Officer under section 68, particularly for years prior to insertion of section 56(2)(viib). of section 56(2)(viib). In the present case, the Assessing Officer has doubted the valuation of shares In the present case, the Assessing Officer has doubted the In the present case, the Assessing Officer has doubted the and the commercial rationale of the transaction, which is beyond the scope of and the commercial rationale of the transaction, which is beyond the scope of and the commercial rationale of the transaction, which is beyond the scope of section 68 for the relevant assessment year. It is pertinent to note that the section 68 for the relevant assessment year. It is pertinent to note that the section 68 for the relevant assessment year. It is pertinent to note that the provisions of section 56(2)(viib), which empower the Assessing Officer to examine provisions of section 56(2)(viib), which empower the Assessing Officer to examin provisions of section 56(2)(viib), which empower the Assessing Officer to examin excess share premium, were introduced with effect from AY 2013-14 and are not excess share premium, were introduced with effect from AY 2013 excess share premium, were introduced with effect from AY 2013 applicable to the year under consideration. Therefore, questioning the valuation of applicable to the year under consideration. Therefore, questioning the valuation of applicable to the year under consideration. Therefore, questioning the valuation of shares in the present case is legally untenable. shares in the present case is legally untenable. Further, it is also relevant to note that t Further, it is also relevant to note that the share application money was received he share application money was received in earlier years and was duly recorded in the books of account, which were in earlier years and was duly recorded in the books of account, which were in earlier years and was duly recorded in the books of account, which were examined during the original assessment proceedings. There is no finding by the examined during the original assessment proceedings. There is no finding by the examined during the original assessment proceedings. There is no finding by the Assessing Officer that the documents furnished are false or fabricated. The Assessing Officer that the documents furnished are false or f Assessing Officer that the documents furnished are false or f addition has been made merely on suspicion and on the basis of general addition has been made merely on suspicion and on the basis of general addition has been made merely on suspicion and on the basis of general observations regarding high premium and group transactions. The Hon'ble observations regarding high premium and group transactions. The Hon'ble observations regarding high premium and group transactions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (159 ITR 78) CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (159 ITR 78) CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (159 ITR 78) has held that where the assesse that where the assessee furnishes names and addresses of creditors and the e furnishes names and addresses of creditors and the Department fails to pursue the matter further, addition under section 68 is not Department fails to pursue the matter further, addition under section 68 is not Department fails to pursue the matter further, addition under section 68 is not justified. In view of the above facts and judicial precedents, I am of the considered opinion In view of the above facts and judicial precedents, I am of the considered opinion In view of the above facts and judicial precedents, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant has satisf that the appellant has satisfactorily discharged the burden cast upon it under actorily discharged the burden cast upon it under section 68. The Assessing Officer has failed to bring any cogent material on section 68. The Assessing Officer has failed to bring any cogent material on section 68. The Assessing Officer has failed to bring any cogent material on record to disprove the evidences furnished. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. record to disprove the evidences furnished. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. record to disprove the evidences furnished. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 10,75,00,000 made under section 68 is unsustainable in law in law and is hereby 10,75,00,000 made under section 68 is deleted. 7. Before us, the learned Departmental Representative submitted Before us, the learned Departmental Representative submitted Before us, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that the reopening was founded upon tangible material and upon that the reopening was founded upon tangible material and upon that the reopening was founded upon tangible material and upon the observations/directions of the learned CIT(A) in the appellate the observations/directions of the learned CIT(A) in the appellate the observations/directions of the learned CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings for Assessment Year proceedings for Assessment Year 2012-13. According to him, the 13. According to him, the

ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO 14 248, 255/MUM/2026 Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd. Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd.

learned CIT(A) was, therefore, not justified in characterising the learned CIT(A) was, therefore, not justified in characterising the learned CIT(A) was, therefore, not justified in characterising the reassessment as a mere change of opinion. reassessment as a mere change of opinion.

8.1 Further, the learned counsel referred to the finding of the Further, the learned counsel referred to the finding of the Further, the learned counsel referred to the finding of the learned CIT(A) of not following the procedure of amended pr of not following the procedure of amended pr of not following the procedure of amended provisions

ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO 15 248, 255/MUM/2026 Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd. Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd.

of section 148 of the A of section 148 of the Act including issue of the notice under section ct including issue of the notice under section 148A(b) and order under section 148 and order under section 148A(d) of the Act before issue of ct before issue of notice under section 148 of the A otice under section 148 of the Act. He submitted that as the fir He submitted that as the first notice issued under section 148 notice issued under section 148 in month of March, 2021 in month of March, 2021 was issued on a invalid name and therefore same was dropped and issued on a invalid name and therefore same was dropped and issued on a invalid name and therefore same was dropped and again fresh notice has been issued again fresh notice has been issued 1/04/2021 and therefore the 1/04/2021 and therefore the Assessing officer was required to follow the procedure as held by the ssessing officer was required to follow the procedure as held by the ssessing officer was required to follow the procedure as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal Ashish Agarwal (supra). He submitted that the Revenue in its ground has not even challenged submitted that the Revenue in its ground has not even challenged submitted that the Revenue in its ground has not even challenged this finding of ld CIT(A) and thus, this appeal of the Revenue is not this finding of ld CIT(A) and thus, this appeal of the Revenue is not this finding of ld CIT(A) and thus, this appeal of the Revenue is not liable to be proceeded with. liable to be proceeded with.

9.1 On a careful consideration of the record, we find considerable On a careful consideration of the record, we find considerable On a careful consideration of the record, we find considerable force in the submission of force in the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee. The the learned counsel for the assessee. The significance of the material placed before us is that it does not significance of the material placed before us is that it does not significance of the material placed before us is that it does not merely establish that the assessee had disclosed the receipt of merely establish that the assessee had disclosed the receipt of merely establish that the assessee had disclosed the receipt of share application money. The record demonstrates that the share application money. The record demonstrates that the share application money. The record demonstrates that the

ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO 16 248, 255/MUM/2026 Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd. Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd.

Assessing Officer had Assessing Officer had specifically called for the information and cifically called for the information and thereafter pursued the matter by further enquiry thereafter pursued the matter by further enquiry.

9.2 In the original assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer In the original assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer In the original assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 142(1) dated 21 July 2011 specifically issued a notice under section 142(1) dated 21 July 2011 specifically issued a notice under section 142(1) dated 21 July 2011 specifically requiring the assessee to furn requiring the assessee to furnish details of the shareholders/share ish details of the shareholders/share application money received. application money received. In response thereto, the assessee In response thereto, the assessee furnished the requisite details, which are placed in the paper book furnished the requisite details, which are placed in the paper book furnished the requisite details, which are placed in the paper book at pages 122 to 125. The statement so furnished contained, inter at pages 122 to 125. The statement so furnished contained, inter at pages 122 to 125. The statement so furnished contained, inter alia, particulars of th alia, particulars of the shareholders and the share application e shareholders and the share application money received from them. The amounts reflected therein included money received from them. The amounts reflected therein included money received from them. The amounts reflected therein included substantial sums received from Rahas Investments Pvt. Ltd., Lupin substantial sums received from Rahas Investments Pvt. Ltd., Lupin substantial sums received from Rahas Investments Pvt. Ltd., Lupin Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Lupin Investments Pvt. Ltd. and Visiomed Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Lupin Investments Pvt. Ltd. and Visiomed Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Lupin Investments Pvt. Ltd. and Visiomed (India) Pvt. Ltd. For ready reference, ready reference, the detail filed by the assessee the detail filed by the assessee regarding share application money regarding share application money is extracted as under: under:

Particulars 31/03/2009 31/03/2008 Shareholders Shareholders of these cos of these cos Rahas Investments 101,200,000 3,896,013 Pg 1 Pg 1 Pvt.ltd Synchem Chemicals (I) - 122,825 - Pvt Ltd Lupin Marketing Pvt Ltd 80,800,000 - Pg 2 Pg 2 Lupin Investments Pvt 22,350,000 - Pg 3 Pg 3 Ltd Visiomed (I) Pvt.ltd 88,392,750 2,642,750 Pg 4 Pg 4 TOTAL 292,742,750 6,661,588 9.3 The enquiry did not end with the furnishing of the aforesaid The enquiry did not end with the furnishing of the aforesaid The enquiry did not end with the furnishing of the aforesaid statement. The assessee also furnished details of the shareholders statement. The assessee also furnished details of the shareholders statement. The assessee also furnished details of the shareholders and beneficial owners, including their addresses, PAN and and beneficial owners, including their addresses, PAN and and beneficial owners, including their addresses, PAN and percentage of shareholding. It further furnished a specific statement percentage of shareholding. It further furnished a specific statement percentage of shareholding. It further furnished a specific statement

ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO 17 248, 255/MUM/2026 Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd. Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd.

of the share application money outstanding as on 31 March 2009, of the share application money outstanding as on 31 March 2009, of the share application money outstanding as on 31 March 2009, along with the names, PANs and amounts attributable to the along with the names, PANs and amounts attributable to the along with the names, PANs and amounts attributable to the respective applicants. The record also shows that the assessee had respective applicants. The record also shows that the assessee had respective applicants. The record also shows that the assessee had furnished the shareholding pattern with its letter dated 21 July furnished the shareholding pattern with its letter dated 21 July furnished the shareholding pattern with its letter dated 21 July 2011 and explained, with reference thereto, why the provisions of 011 and explained, with reference thereto, why the provisions of 011 and explained, with reference thereto, why the provisions of section 2(22)(e) were not attracted. section 2(22)(e) were not attracted. More importantly, the assessee More importantly, the assessee furnished confirmations of the accounts ( available at paper book furnished confirmations of the accounts ( available at paper book furnished confirmations of the accounts ( available at paper book pages 54 to 55) , acknowledgements of returns of income of the pages 54 to 55) , acknowledgements of returns of income pages 54 to 55) , acknowledgements of returns of income share applicants ( available at pages 56 to 62) , and the bank share applicants ( available at pages 56 to 62) , and the bank share applicants ( available at pages 56 to 62) , and the bank statement of the subscriber ( available at page 63). In respect of statement of the subscriber ( available at page 63). In respect of statement of the subscriber ( available at page 63). In respect of Visiomed (India) Pvt. Ltd., the confirmation furnished before the Visiomed (India) Pvt. Ltd., the confirmation furnished before the Visiomed (India) Pvt. Ltd., the confirmation furnished before the Assessing Officer on 7 November 2011 is available at paper book Assessing Officer on 7 November 2011 is available at Assessing Officer on 7 November 2011 is available at pages 65 to 68. The Assessing Officer also examined the apparent pages 65 to 68. The Assessing Officer also examined the apparent pages 65 to 68. The Assessing Officer also examined the apparent excess of share application money over the authorised share excess of share application money over the authorised share excess of share application money over the authorised share capital. In response, the assessee furnished reconciliation on 28 capital. In response, the assessee furnished reconciliation on 28 capital. In response, the assessee furnished reconciliation on 28 November 2011 and 29 November 2011 explaining the position and November 2011 and 29 November 2011 explaining the posi November 2011 and 29 November 2011 explaining the posi the return of the excess share application money. The notice issued the return of the excess share application money. The notice issued the return of the excess share application money. The notice issued under section 133(6) and the reply thereto are available at paper under section 133(6) and the reply thereto are available at paper under section 133(6) and the reply thereto are available at paper book page 79, while the financial statements of Lupin Marketing book page 79, while the financial statements of Lupin Marketing book page 79, while the financial statements of Lupin Marketing Limited are placed at pages 80 to 86. Limited are placed at pages 80 to 86.

9.4 The above sequence of events is of considerable significance. ve sequence of events is of considerable significance. ve sequence of events is of considerable significance. This is not a case where the assessee merely placed some This is not a case where the assessee merely placed some This is not a case where the assessee merely placed some information on record and the Assessing Officer remained silent. information on record and the Assessing Officer remained silent. information on record and the Assessing Officer remained silent. The assessment record, as placed before us, shows a specific The assessment record, as placed before us, shows a specific The assessment record, as placed before us, shows a specific

ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO 18 248, 255/MUM/2026 Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd. Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd.

requisition under section 142(1), a detailed response by the section 142(1), a detailed response by the section 142(1), a detailed response by the assessee, further supporting documents, examination of the share assessee, further supporting documents, examination of the share assessee, further supporting documents, examination of the share application money vis application money vis-à-vis the authorised share capital, a vis the authorised share capital, a subsequent reconciliation furnished by the assessee, and an subsequent reconciliation furnished by the assessee, and an subsequent reconciliation furnished by the assessee, and an enquiry under section 133(6) enquiry under section 133(6). The issue was thus actually examined actually examined in the course of the original assessment proceedings. The absence in the course of the original assessment proceedings in the course of the original assessment proceedings of a detailed discussion on each item in the assessment order of a detailed discussion on each item in the assessment order of a detailed discussion on each item in the assessment order cannot, in these circumstances, obliterate the enquiry which the cannot, in these circumstances, obliterate the enquiry which the cannot, in these circumstances, obliterate the enquiry which the record affirmatively dem record affirmatively demonstrates. The distinction between a case of The distinction between a case of mere disclosure and a case of enquiry is material. The doctrine of mere disclosure and a case of enquiry is material. The doctrine of mere disclosure and a case of enquiry is material. The doctrine of change of opinion is attracted where the Assessing Officer, having change of opinion is attracted where the Assessing Officer, having change of opinion is attracted where the Assessing Officer, having considered a particular issue in the course of the original considered a particular issue in the course of the original considered a particular issue in the course of the original assessment, seeks subsequently to reopen the assessment merely subsequently to reopen the assessment merely subsequently to reopen the assessment merely because he or his successor takes a different view of the same because he or his successor takes a different view of the same because he or his successor takes a different view of the same material. What the law does not permit is not merely a change in material. What the law does not permit is not merely a change in material. What the law does not permit is not merely a change in the language of the order; it is a second examination of the same the language of the order; it is a second examination of the same the language of the order; it is a second examination of the same issue on the same material with a view to arriving at a different e material with a view to arriving at a different e material with a view to arriving at a different conclusion.

9.5 In the present case, the subsequent reopening did not rest In the present case, the subsequent reopening did not rest In the present case, the subsequent reopening did not rest upon any new document, new information, subsequent discovery or upon any new document, new information, subsequent discovery or upon any new document, new information, subsequent discovery or other tangible material concerning the share application money. other tangible material concerning the share application money. other tangible material concerning the share application money. The foundation of the reopening was the observation made in the The foundation of the reopening was the observation made in the The foundation of the reopening was the observation made in the appellate proceedings for Assessment Year 2012 late proceedings for Assessment Year 2012 late proceedings for Assessment Year 2012-13 that the relevant addition ought to have been considered at the stage of relevant addition ought to have been considered at the stage of relevant addition ought to have been considered at the stage of

ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO 19 248, 255/MUM/2026 Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd. Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd.

receipt of the share application money rather than at the stage of receipt of the share application money rather than at the stage of receipt of the share application money rather than at the stage of allotment of shares. That observation, by itself, did not bring any allotment of shares. That observation, by itself, did not bring any allotment of shares. That observation, by itself, did not bring any new material into the record of the year under consideration. The material into the record of the year under consideration. The material into the record of the year under consideration. The material upon which the reassessment was ultimately founded was material upon which the reassessment was ultimately founded was material upon which the reassessment was ultimately founded was already available before the Assessing Officer in the original already available before the Assessing Officer in the original already available before the Assessing Officer in the original assessment proceedings. assessment proceedings.

9.6 The principle governing the matter is The principle governing the matter is well settled by the well settled by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of CIT v. Kelvinator of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in India Ltd.(supra) , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the concept of “change of opinion” constitutes an in-built test to the concept of “change of opinion” constitutes an in the concept of “change of opinion” constitutes an in prevent an arbitrary exercise of the power prevent an arbitrary exercise of the power of reassessment and that of reassessment and that the power under section 147 cannot be exercised as a power of the power under section 147 cannot be exercised as a power of the power under section 147 cannot be exercised as a power of review. The existence of tangible material having a live nexus with review. The existence of tangible material having a live nexus with review. The existence of tangible material having a live nexus with the formation of the requisite belief is therefore fundamental to the the formation of the requisite belief is therefore fundamental to the the formation of the requisite belief is therefore fundamental to the assumption of reassessment juri assumption of reassessment jurisdiction.

9.7 Tested on the aforesaid principle, the present case falls Tested on the aforesaid principle, the present case falls Tested on the aforesaid principle, the present case falls squarely within the mischief sought to be prevented by the doctrine squarely within the mischief sought to be prevented by the doctrine squarely within the mischief sought to be prevented by the doctrine of change of opinion. The issue of share application money was of change of opinion. The issue of share application money was of change of opinion. The issue of share application money was specifically raised by the Assessing Officer; the assessee furnished specifically raised by the Assessing Officer; the ass specifically raised by the Assessing Officer; the ass the information sought; supporting documents were furnished; the information sought; supporting documents were furnished; the information sought; supporting documents were furnished; further enquiry was made under section 133(6); the apparent further enquiry was made under section 133(6); the apparent further enquiry was made under section 133(6); the apparent discrepancy concerning the authorised share capital was examined discrepancy concerning the authorised share capital was examined discrepancy concerning the authorised share capital was examined and reconciled; and the matter was ultimately accepted in the and reconciled; and the matter was ultimately accepted and reconciled; and the matter was ultimately accepted

ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO 20 248, 255/MUM/2026 Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd. Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd.

original assessment. Thereafter, in the absence of any fresh tangible original assessment. Thereafter, in the absence of any fresh tangible original assessment. Thereafter, in the absence of any fresh tangible material, the same issue was reopened on the basis of an material, the same issue was reopened on the basis of an material, the same issue was reopened on the basis of an observation observation observation arising arising arising from from from appellate appellate proceedings appellate proceedings proceedings for for for another another another assessment year. The reassessment thus amounted to a review of assessment year. The reassessment thus amounted to a review of assessment year. The reassessment thus amounted to a review of the earlier assessment and is not sustainable in law. the earlier assessment and is not sustainable in law. the earlier assessment and is not sustainable in law.

9.8 We, therefore, find no infirmity in the conclusion of the We, therefore, find no infirmity in the conclusion of the We, therefore, find no infirmity in the conclusion of the learned CIT(A) that the reopening of the assessment on the issue of learned CIT(A) that the reopening of the assessment on the issue of learned CIT(A) that the reopening of the assessment on the issue of share application money was vitiated by change of opinion. The first share application money was vitiated by change of opinion. The first share application money was vitiated by change of opinion. The first ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. ound of appeal raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. ound of appeal raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed.

9.9 The The The assessee has assessee has also raised an objection that the assessee has also raised also raised an objection an objection that the that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without following the reassessment proceedings were initiated without following the reassessment proceedings were initiated without following the procedure contemplated under section 148A of the Act. It was procedure contemplated under section 148A of the Act. It was procedure contemplated under section 148A of the Act. It was submitted that the first notice issued under section 148 in March the first notice issued under section 148 in March the first notice issued under section 148 in March 2021 was issued in an incorrect name and was thereafter dropped, 2021 was issued in an incorrect name and was thereafter dropped, 2021 was issued in an incorrect name and was thereafter dropped, followed by issuance of a fresh notice in April 2021, and that the followed by issuance of a fresh notice in April 2021, and that the followed by issuance of a fresh notice in April 2021, and that the procedure contemplated by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme procedure contemplated by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme procedure contemplated by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal ion of India v. Ashish Agarwal (supra) (supra) was therefore required to be followed. required to be followed. 9.10 We find that t We find that the ld. CIT(A) rendered a specific and he ld. CIT(A) rendered a specific and unambiguous finding that the reassessment proceedings, having unambiguous finding that the reassessment proceedings, having unambiguous finding that the reassessment proceedings, having been initiated by a notice under section 148 without following the been initiated by a notice under section 148 without been initiated by a notice under section 148 without procedure prescribed under section 148A , prescribed under section 148A , as mandated by the as mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal (supra) Ashish Agarwal (supra)

ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO 21 248, 255/MUM/2026 Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd. Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd.

, was invalid on that ground alone. This finding has not been invalid on that ground alone. This finding has not been invalid on that ground alone. This finding has not been assailed in any of the grounds raised by the Revenue before us. It is assailed in any of the grounds raised by the Revenue assailed in any of the grounds raised by the Revenue well settled that a finding of the first appellate authority that is not well settled that a finding of the first appellate authority that is not well settled that a finding of the first appellate authority that is not specifically challenged attains finality inter specifically challenged attains finality inter parties parties, and the Revenue cannot, in the same breath, seek to sustain the Revenue cannot, in the same breath, seek to sustain the Revenue cannot, in the same breath, seek to sustain the reassessment while leaving unchallenged a find reassessment while leaving unchallenged a finding that is, by itself, ing that is, by itself, fatal to it. On this short ground too, the Revenue's appeal must fail. fatal to it. On this short ground too, the Revenue's appeal must fail. fatal to it. On this short ground too, the Revenue's appeal must fail. 10. For the same reason, the grounds raised by the Revenue For the same reason, the grounds raised by the Revenue For the same reason, the grounds raised by the Revenue challenging the deletion of the addition made under section 68 in challenging the deletion of the addition made under section 68 in challenging the deletion of the addition made under section 68 in respect of share application money d respect of share application money do not survive for adjudication. o not survive for adjudication. Once the very assumption of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment Once the very assumption of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment Once the very assumption of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment fails, the reassessment order cannot furnish a sustainable fails, the reassessment order cannot furnish a sustainable fails, the reassessment order cannot furnish a sustainable foundation for adjudication of the additions made therein. The foundation for adjudication of the additions made therein. The foundation for adjudication of the additions made therein. The grounds grounds relating relating to to interest interest under under section s ection 234B 234B and and initiation/deletion of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) initiation/deletion of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) initiation/deletion of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are likewise consequential or academic in the facts of the present are likewise consequential or academic in the facts of the present are likewise consequential or academic in the facts of the present case.

ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO 22 248, 255/MUM/2026 Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd. Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd.

ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO ITA 6386, 5941, 5952/MUM/2026 & CO 23 248, 255/MUM/2026 Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd. Lupin Investment Pvt. Ltd.

Kunal Kr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.

BY ORDER, BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai ITAT, Mumbai