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
WP/1894/2022
Decided On : 11-02-2025
(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 147 and Section 148 - Reopening of assessment - Notice issued beyond four years without alleging failure to disclose material facts - Jurisdictional parameters not fulfilled - Assessment quashed. (Paras 4, 6, 11, 15)
(B) Jurisdiction - Requirement for reopening assessment beyond four years - Must show failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment. (Paras 10, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the notice for reopening assessment for AY 2014-15, issued more than four years after the assessment year, claiming no failure to disclose material facts.
Findings of Court:
The court found no jurisdiction for reopening the assessment as the necessary parameters were not met.
Issues: Whether the notice for reopening assessment was valid given the time elapsed and the absence of allegations of non-disclosure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without an allegation of failure to disclose material facts, the jurisdictional requirement for reopening assessments beyond four years is not satisfied.
Result: Notice and order quashed.
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 company is engaged in the business of publishing and trading of books. Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford and has a branch PE (Oxford University Press India) with several other offices in India.
2. In this case the assessee has filed return of income for AY 2014-15 on 16.07.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 31,39,16,580/- in the status of a domestic company i.e. resident' company, taxable @ 30% and applicable surcharge and cess. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed on 30.12.2016 with assessed total income of Rs. 32,77,68,610/- in the status of a domestic company i.e. 'resident' company, taxable @ 30% and applicable surcharge and cess.
3. In the Income tax return filed by the assessee for AY 2014-15, the assessee has mentioned the status as Domestic Company and the income was assessed to tax at 30% i.e., domestic company tax rate. However, in the scrutiny proceedings of AY 2016-17, based on the Tax residency certificate submitted, the assessee was assesssed as Non-resident and the income was taxed at 40% i.e., foreign company rate.It is also to be noted that the assessee was assessed as 'non-resident' in the Order passed u/s. 144C(1) dated 31.12.2019 for AY 2016-17.
4. In view of the above facts and as per the TRC, the status of the assessee is a 'non- resident' and it has to be assessed as such. The assessee company should have been taxed at the rate applicable to foreign company. The assessment of the A.Y. 2014-15 was completed in the status of 'resident', which attracts the tax of Rs. 11,14,08,550/- @ 30% + applicable surcharge and cess, as applicable in case of a 'resident' assessee. However, since the assessee is a non resident entity it has to be taxed @ 40% +surcharge and education cess. Hence, the income has not been correctly taxed and therefore the short levy of tax of Rs. 3,54,48,175/- should be charged to the assessee.
5. In view of the above I have reasons to believe that the assessed income of Rs. 32,77,68,610/- has not been taxed at the correct rate applicable to the non resident companies and it has escaped assessment to the extent of short levy of tax of Rs. 3,54,48,175/- for the A. Y. 2014-15 within the meaning of Explanation 2(c)(ii) of Sec. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, it is a fit case for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the I.T Act, 1961 for the A. Y. 2014-15. The assessment being sought to be reopened falls within the period of six years from the end of the assessment year. Therefore the administrative approval of the CIT is requested to be granted as per section 151(1) of the I. T. Act.”
6. On perusing the reasons, we find no allegation regarding any failure on the petitioner’s part to fully and truly disclose any material facts necessary for the assessment. Wi
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....
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.