HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M.S. SONAK, JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN
ICICI BANK LTD – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Jitendra Jain, J.) :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
3. This petition challenges notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) issued by the respondent No.1 for the assessment year 2014-15.
4. The reasons for re-opening were furnished to the petitioner on 25 November 2011 and the same reads as under :-



5. Ms. Vissanji, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice is issued after a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year and in the absence of any allegation of any failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment, impugned notice is barred by the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act. She further submits that the issue for which the re- opening is sought was raised in the course of the assessment proceedings and a reply was filed by the petitioner and same was considered in the assessment order. Therefore, based on this ground also the impugned proceedings would amount to change of opinion. She relied upon the decision in t
Re-assessment under the Income-tax Act cannot be initiated after four years without specific allegations of failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment.
Re-assessment under the Income Tax Act cannot occur after 4 years without specific allegations of non-disclosure of material facts.
Reopening of assessment under Section 148 is impermissible if the issues were previously examined under Section 263 without fresh material.
Reopening of income assessment under Section 148 is impermissible without fresh material and cannot be based on previously examined issues under Section 263.
Reassessment notices under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act cannot be issued after four years unless there is a failure to disclose material facts, which was not established in this case.
Reassessment cannot be based on a change of opinion, and the duty of the assessee is to disclose fully and truly all primary relevant facts.
Re-opening of assessment under Section 148 requires failure to disclose material facts; absence of such allegation invalidates the notice.
Reopening of assessment under Section 148 requires valid reasons; mere incorrect information cannot justify such action.
A notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if issued beyond the limitation period and based on previously available information, constituting a change of opinion.
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.