IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Bhargav D. Karia, D.N.Ray, JJ.
Meghmani Organics Limited – Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad & Anr. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 5627 of 2022
Decided On : 04-12-2024
(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 14A, 32(1)(iia), 147, 148 - Reopening of assessment - Notice challenged for being based on mere change of opinion without new tangible material - The Assessing Officer had previously scrutinized all relevant facts during the original assessment. (Paras 6.1, 9, 10)
(B) Jurisdiction - The Assessing Officer must have a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment; mere change of opinion does not suffice for reopening. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the reopening of the assessment for AY 2014-15, arguing that all material facts were disclosed in the original assessment, and the reopening was based solely on prior records without fresh evidence.
Findings of Court:
The court found that reopening was unjustified as it was based on previously considered material, amounting to a mere change of opinion.
Issues: The main issues were whether the reopening was valid given the absence of new material and the implications of 'change of opinion'.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the reopening of the assessment was impermissible as it constituted a mere change of opinion without fresh evidence.
Result: Petition allowed; notice quashed.
JUDGMENT :
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
Heard learned advocate Mr.B.S.Soparkar for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Varun K. Patel with learned advocate Mr.Dev D. Patel for the respondents.
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Varun K. Patel waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 27th March, 2021 for re-opening of the assessment for the 2014- 15 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).
3. The brief facts of the case are as under :
3.1. The petitioner filed its original return of income for the Assessment Year 2014- 15 on 28th November, 2014 declaring total income of Rs.3,23,95,810/-. Thereafter the case of the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2014-15 was selected for scrutiny, detailed scrutiny was undertaken and notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 26th April, 2016 was issued asking inter-alia specific details relating to disallowance in accordance with Rule 8D read with Section 14A of the Act as well as the depreciation claimed by the petitioner on various assets.
3.2. The petitioner replied to the said notice in part on 30th August, 2017 and as such, further notice was issued to the petitioner seeking further details which were provided by the petitioner vide letter dated 20th November, 2017.
3.3. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed an Assessment Order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Act for Assessment Year 2014-15 on 28th December, 2017 assessing total income of the petitioner at Rs.6,69,69,760/- under normal provisions and book profit at Rs. 17,29,38,070/- and also made disallowance Rs.2,72,88,280/- under Section 14A of the Act.
3.4. The respondent No.1 issued the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 27th March, 2021 asking the petitioner to file return of income for Assessment Year 2014-15. In compliance of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 27th March, 2021, the petitioner filed its return of income and sought for the reasons recorded for reopening.
3.5. A copy of the reasons recorded for reopening was provided to the petitioner vide letter dated 17.05.2021 and thereafter, the petitioner filed the objections on 31st May, 2021 challenging the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act.
3.6. The respondent No.2 thereafter issued the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 17th December, 2021 asking various details in connection with assessment instead of passing any order and disposed of the objections.
3.7. The petitioner thereafter, vide letter dated 31st December, 2021 requested the respondent No.2 to pass a speaking order disposing of the objections. The respondent No.2 thereafter passed the impugned order dated 15th January, 2022 disposing of the objections. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied, the petitioner has preferred this petition.
4. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer can be summarised as under :
On perusal of the assessment records for the year under consideration, it is noticed the assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs.41,46,74,708/- which include additional depreciation of Rs.3,70,97,978/- on pollution treatment plant.
2.1 On verification of 3CD report, the auditor in column no.22 reported that interest inadmissible u/s. 23 of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprise Act is of Rs.44,80,949/-.
2.2 It is further verified that while working out disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act the expenditure by way of interest is taken at Rs.19,47,87,211/- instead of Rs.33,28,98,762/- debited in the P&L A/c.
3. Analysis of information collected/received:
From the records, it is verified that assessee has wrongly claimed additional depreciation of Rs.3,70,97,978/- u/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Act on pollution treatment plant which is not used
Reopening of assessment under the Income Tax Act requires tangible new material; mere change of opinion is insufficient.
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.
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....
The Court should be guided by the reasons recorded for the reassessment and not by the reasons or explanation given by the Assessing Officer at a later stage in respect of the notice of reassessment.....
It is settled law that, at the stage of Section 148 of the Act, what is required is “reason to believe”, but not the established fact of escapement of income. This aspect has been considered by the A....
Reopening under section 147 invalid if based on borrowed satisfaction from investigation wing without AO's independent application of mind demonstrating live link to non-disclosure of material facts,....
Under section 147 of the Act the proceedings for the reassessment can be initiated only if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any....
Section 147 enables the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess any income chargeable to tax which he has reason to believe has escaped assessment for an assessment year.
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.