Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S. Sonak, Jitendra Jain, JJ.
Indusind Media & Communications Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 11(1) Aayakar Bhavan, M.k.road – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jitendra Jain, J.
1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 30 March 2012 for assessment year 2007-08. Rule and interim relief were granted on 23 June 2014.
Brief Facts : -
2. The petitioner filed its return of income on 29 October 2007, which return was revised on 31 March 2009. In the revised computation of income, the petitioner claimed as deduction an amount of Rs.69,88,37,464/- being Inventories, Sundry Debtors, Loans & Advances and Cost of Set Top Boxes written off against the Share Premium pursuant to amalgamation scheme approved by the High Court. The case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny assessment.
3. On 7 December 2009, the petitioner filed written submissions wherein it had mentioned various write off against the share premium account in accordance with the amalgamation order passed by this Court on 9 February 2007. The petitioner also gave its submissions on business loss & bad debts in respect of the Inventories, Sundry Debtors, Loans & Advances amounting to Rs.9,05,12,555/-, Rs.41,00,00,000/- and Rs. 12,99,12,471/- respectively. The petitioner
Reassessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is impermissible if the issues were previously examined during the original assessment, as it constitutes a change of opinion.
Reassessment under Section 148 is impermissible if the issues were previously examined, constituting a change of opinion.
Assessee’s objections raised against the reopening proceedings are not acceptable as the case warrants scrutiny on the same lines. Accordingly, the objections so raised are hereby disposed off accord....
Reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act is justified when there is failure to disclose material facts, even beyond the four-year limit.
Reopening of assessment under the Income Tax Act after four years is impermissible without failure to disclose material facts; mere change of opinion does not justify such action.
Reopening of assessment under Section 148 is valid based on audit objections if the taxpayer fails to provide timely responses or necessary documentation.
Point of Law : Sufficiency of the evidence or material is not open to scrutiny by the Court but the existence of the belief is the sine qua non for a valid exercise of power.
Reopening of assessment requires tangible material indicating income has escaped assessment; mere change of opinion is insufficient.
Reassessment under Income Tax Act is impermissible on issues already addressed in a completed assessment, as it constitutes a change of opinion without new material evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
