Back
BHARGAV D. KARIA, NIRAL R. MEHTA
KULDIPSINH HAMIRSINH RAHEVAR – Appellant
Versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER – Respondent
ORDER :
1. By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, he petitioner has challenged notice dated 27th March, 2021 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) as well as order dated 11th December, 2021 by which the objection raised by the petitioner was rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case can be stated as under.
2.1 The petitioner filed return of income on 26th September, 2013 declaring his income at Rs.12,09,758/- for the A.Y. 2013-14. The said return was thoroughly processed by the department and ultimately, scrutiny assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was framed on 27th March, 2015.
2.2 On 26th June, 2015 notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued directing, inter alia, calling upon the petitioner to furnish several details. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed several replies on 09th July, 2015, 16th July, 2015 and 01st September, 2015.
2.3 The respondent vide notice dated 14th October, 2015 again called upon the petitioner to provide further details. In furtherance thereof, the petitioner filed various replies on 20th October, 2015, 29th October, 2015, 30th October, 2015, 05th November, 2015, 30th Nove
Reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act is impermissible if based solely on a change of opinion without new evidence.
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 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 court emphasized the need for tangible material to believe that income had escaped assessment and held that the power to grant approval for re-opening an assessment is coupled with a duty and can....
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 the Income Tax Act requires tangible new material; mere change of opinion is insufficient.
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 material; mere change of opinion is insufficient for reassessment.
The jurisdiction to re-open an assessment under the Income Tax Act requires tangible material indicating income has escaped assessment, and cannot be based solely on a change of opinion.
Reopening of assessment under Section 148 requires valid reasons; mere incorrect information cannot justify such action.
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
