JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondent in respect of PAN No.AAACC3097L and impugned Notice u/s148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2012 and the consequential Order dated 05.03.2013 passed by the Respondent disposing off the Objections to the initiation of the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act.)

1. The Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’] dated 29.03.2012 and the consequential order, disposing the objections filed by the petitioner in order dated 05.03.2013 are under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner being a Company incorporated in New South Wales, Australia was a subsidiary of Cairn Energy PLC based in Edinburgh and is engaged in the business of exploration and production of oil and gas in India since 1996. By an order of the Bombay High Court dated June 22, 2010 in Company Petition No.155 of 2010, the present petitioner took over the business of Cairn Energy India Private Limited and filed the present writ petition.

3. The petitioner company filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2007-08 on 30.10.2007, declaring a total income of Rs.6,58,26,875/-. The deduction was claimed. Tax payable on book profit under Section 115 JB was computed at Rs.16,60,48,488 and tax payable under normal provisions of the Act was computed at Rs.2,75,28,799/-. The petitioner claimed a refund in its return of income on the basis of TDS credits and advance tax payments.

4. The petitioner states that they have furnished true and adequate disclosure of the income of the petitioner, was filed along with the audited financial statements, Tax Audit Report as required under Section 44AB of the Act, Audit reports in Form 3CD regarding tax audit, Form 3 CEB concerning transfer pricing Audit and Form I OBB in respect of claim of 80IB deduction under the Act. The return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. The case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny. The petitioner answered the queries raised by the Assessing authority. The Arm’s length price was determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer. After completing all the procedures, the assessment order was passed on 24.02.2011 under Section 143(3) of the Act. Admittedly, the case of the petitioner is reopened under Section 147 of the Act within a period of four years. After completion of the assessment proceedings, the respondents issued notice under Section 148 of the Act for reopening of assessment on the ground that the Assessing Officer has ‘reason to believe’ that income chargeable to tax for the Assessment Year 2007-08 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. The petitioner requested to furnish reasons. The reasons furnished reasons in proceedings dated 08.10.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted their objections in detail and the said objections were disposed of in vide letter dated 05.03.2013.

5. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the case of the petitioner though falling within the period of four years, the reopening is made based on change of opinion and therefore, the condition stipulated that the Assessing Officer must have ‘reason to believe’ is not satisfied and thus, the impugned orders are to be set aside.

6. The learned Senior counsel elaborately contended that the petitioners have furnished all the details, books of accounts, at the time of scrutiny proceedings and answered the queries raised by the Assessing officer. The Assessing Officer elaborately considered all the materials and passed the assessment order on 24.02.2011. While so, the reopening of assessment is made without any tangible material and based on change of opinion.

7. The learned Senior counsel drew the attention of this Court with reference to the reasons recorded and elaborated that the reasons furnished are