IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
K.R. SHRIRAM, R.N. LADDHA, JJ.
Parinee Realty Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3638 of 2021
Decided On : 19-01-2022
Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 148 and 147 - Taxation - Seeking to re-open assessment - Rejected - Notice - It is settled law that if the reopening is based on mere change of opinion, notice issued under Section 148 of the Act has to be set aside - The re-opening is proposed to be made within four years of end of relevant assessment year.
Finding of the Court:
If it is an error that the Assessing Officer discovered, still an error discovered on a re-consideration of the same material does not given him power to re-open - When the primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed, the Assessing Officer is not entitled on change of opinion to commence proceedings for reassessment. Even if the Assessing Officer, who passed the assessment order, may have raised too many legal inferences from the facts disclosed, on that account the Assessing Officer, who has decided to reopen assessment, is not competent to reopen assessment proceedings.
Result: Petition disposed.
JUDGMENT :
K.R. SHRIRAM, J.
1. Petitioner is impugning a notice dated 30th March, 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) seeking to re-open the assessment for A.Y. 2017-18 and the order dated 22nd June, 2021 rejecting petitioner’s objections.
2. The re-opening is proposed to be made within four years of the end of the relevant assessment year. In such a situation even though proviso to Section 147 of the Act would not apply, and the Assessing Officer has to only make out availability of tangible material, it is settled law that if the reopening is based on mere change of opinion, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act has to be set aside. Paragraph No. 12 of the judgment dated 23rd November, 2021, Reserve Bank Officers Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. vs. The Income Tax Officer and Others, Writ Petition No. 3332 of 2019 (unreported) reads as under:
“.......one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words ‘reason to believe’ failing which, we are afraid, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis of ‘mere change of opinion’ which can-not be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on the fulfillment of certain pre-conditions. If the concept of ‘change of opinion’ is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then the review would take place in the garb of reopening the assessment. One must treat the concept of ‘change of opinion’ as an in-built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Hence, after April 1, 1989, the Assessing Officer has the power to reopen, provided there is ‘tangible material’ to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a link with the formation of the belief.....”
3. We have considered the reasons recorded and communicated to petitioner on 19th April, 2021. The reasons indicate that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) has proceeded on incorrect facts and also he has proceeded on pure change of opinion. We say incorrect facts because the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 21st December, 2019 determining total income of Rs. 1,20,8
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.