Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M.S. SONAKHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS – Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE-3(2)(2) AND 2 ORS – Respondent
Judgment :
(M. S. Sonak, J.) :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The petitioner challenges the impugned notice dated 25 March 2021 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the impugned order dated 31 January 2022, rejecting the petitioner’s objection to reopening of the assessment made by the first respondent for the assessment year 2014-15.
4. Admittedly, the impugned notice dated 25 March 2021 was issued more than four years after the end of the relevant assessment year. Therefore, in terms of the proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, the Assessing Officer could have reopened the assessment only upon recording satisfaction that the petitioner failed to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for the assessment.
5. Upon receipt of the impugned notice dated 25 March 2021, the petitioner sought and was furnished the reasons for reopening via communication dated 11 January 2022. The reasons are contained in the annexure to this communication and are transcribed below for the convenience of reference: -
ANNEXURE
1. The assessee
Reopening of assessment under the Income Tax Act requires an allegation of failure to disclose material facts; without this, jurisdiction is lacking.
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....
Reopening of assessment beyond four years without fresh tangible material or proper disposal of objections is illegal under the Income Tax Act.
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 Assessing Officer cannot reopen an assessment based solely on previously considered material, as this constitutes a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible under the Income Tax Act.
Reopening of assessment under the Income Tax Act requires tangible new material; mere change of opinion is insufficient.
The court established that reopening assessments requires a clear and valid reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, which was not present in this case.
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.
The court emphasized the requirement for the AO to have a valid 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment due to failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for asse....
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
