IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Valmiki Sa Menezes, JJ.
Pushpa Nahata – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Offcer & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 3203 of 2022
Decided On : 20-02-2023
Income Tax - Reopening of Assessment - Section 148, Section 147, Section 144/144B - The court found that the reassessment proceedings were unsustainable as the AO had reviewed the earlier order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. The reasons recorded for the reassessment did not disclose any fresh tangible material, and it was deemed as a change of opinion, making it impermissible in law. The order of assessment, notice of demand, and penalty notice were quashed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the order of assessment dated 22nd March 2022 passed under section 147 read with section 144/144B of the Act as bad and illegal and in excess of jurisdiction. The petitioner's investment in NCL Research and Financial Limited was found to be bogus by the AO, leading to an addition of Rs.27,27,657/- to the income of the assessee.
Finding of the Court:
The reassessment proceedings were unsustainable as the AO had reviewed the earlier order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. The reasons recorded for the reassessment did not disclose any fresh tangible material, and it was deemed as a change of opinion, making it impermissible in law.
Issues: The main ground urged by the petitioner was that the reassessment proceedings were unsustainable as the AO had reviewed the earlier order passed under section 143(3) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the reassessment proceedings were impermissible in law as the reasons recorded for the reassessment did not disclose any fresh tangible material and were deemed as a change of opinion.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the order of assessment, notice of demand, and penalty notice.
JUDGMENT
Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. - The petitioner challenges the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') dated 30th March 2022 as also the order of assessment dated 22nd March 2022 passed under section 147 read with section 144/144B of the Act as bad and illegal and in excess of jurisdiction.
2. Briefly stated the material facts as under :
2.1 The petitioner fled its return of income for the assessment year 2014-15. The return was processed under section 143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Offcer ('AO'). The issues pertaining to the petitioner's investment in NCL Research and Financial Limited were gone into, which investment was found to be bogus by the AO leading to an addition of Rs.27,27,657/-. It needs to be stated that the assessee had claimed in its return that it had purchased 2000 shares in a non-listed company, NCL Research and Financial Limited for a consideration of Rs.3,58,343/- and within a period of two years, had sold the same for a consideration of Rs.30,86,000/-.
2.2 The AO in its order, dated 22nd March 2022 held as under :
14. Therefore, a sum of Rs.27,27,657/- represents the unexplained investment made by the assessee in cash to obtain the equivalent amount as bogus profit on sale of shares. Alternatively, it can also be concluded that the sum of Rs.27,27,657/- is taxable to income of the assessee and not in nature of capital gain. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) are initiated as the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income.
3. A notice under section 148 dated 30th March 2021 came to be issued by the AO seeking to reopen the assessment for the said assessment year 2014-15 on the ground that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act.
4. Reasons supplied to the petitioner for the reopening of the assessment read as under :
The assessee filed its return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 30.09.2014 declaring total income of Rs.9,65,850/-. Scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was completed on 28/12/2016 assessing total income at Rs.37,08,293/-.
Brief details of information collected by the AO :
It is seen from the assessment record that assessee has purchased shares of the scrip NCL Research & Financial Ltd. For Rs.3,58,343/- and later sold it for a consideration of Rs.30,86,000/-. The assessee has claimed in the return of income long term capital gain as exempt income u/s.10(38) to the tune of Rs.27,15,475/-.
3 Analysis of information collected :
It was held in the assessment order that the entire transaction of purchase and sale of shares of the scrip 'M/s. NCL Research & Financial Ltd' was part of accommodation entry and represents the unexplained investment made by the assessee in cash to obtain the equivalent amount as bogus profit on sale of shares. Therefore, the long term capital gain was held as unexplained investment/income from other sources and not in the nature of capital gain as claimed by the assessee.
Findings of the AO :
Since it was held in the assessment made that the entire transaction was part of accommodation entry, the entire sale consideration of Rs.30,86,000/- ought to have been held as unexplained investment/income from other sour
Reassessment proceedings must be based on fresh tangible material and not a mere change of opinion.
The Assessing Officer's jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act has to be tested on the basis of the reasons recorded, and the reassessment proceedings cannot be based on a mere change of opinion w....
The Assessing Officer must establish the jurisdictional requirement for reopening and cannot rely solely on information without verifying if the issue had been disclosed during the original assessmen....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear and unambiguous reasons based on 'reason to believe' for reopening an assessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act,....
Point of law: It is no doubt true that the Court cannot go into the sufficiency or adequacy of the material and substitute its own opinion for that of the Income Tax Officer on the point as to whethe....
Reopening of assessment under the Income Tax Act requires tangible material; mere change of opinion is insufficient for reassessment.
Assessing Officer having arrived at his subjective satisfaction based on additional fresh material placed before him that the petitioner had not fully and truly disclosed all the material facts neces....
The reopening of an assessment under the Income Tax Act requires the Assessing Officer to provide specific reasons linking alleged income escapement to the taxpayer's records, which must not solely r....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Assessing Officer must have 'tangible material' to form a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, especially when issuing a ....
The judgment established the importance of tangible material and the prohibition of a mere change of opinion in the exercise of power under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
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.