Back
BHARGAV D. KARIA, D. N. RAY
Siddhivinayak Enterprise – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(3) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.Tushar Hemani with learned advocate Ms.Vaibhavi K. Parikh for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Karan G. Sanghani for the respondent No.1.
2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Karan Sanghani waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1.
3. Having regard to the controversy arising in this petition in narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the same is taken up for hearing.
4. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of assumption of jurisdiction by the respondent-authority to issue notice dated 31st March, 2021 for re-opening under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2015-16.
5. Brief facts of the case are as under :
5.1. The petitioner was engaged in the business of construction in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2014-15. The petitioner filed return of income on 30th September, 2014 declaring total income at Rs.NIL due to loss. The petitioner follows percentage completi
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 the Income Tax Act requires tangible new material; mere change of opinion is insufficient.
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 beyond four years without fresh tangible material or proper disposal of objections is illegal under the Income Tax Act.
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.
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 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....
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.
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
