Back
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ., BISWAJIT PALIT
Abhijit Paul, son of Sri Swapan Kumar Paul – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, Government of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also heard Mr. S. Chetia, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Koushik Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-revenue.
[2] Petitioner has sought quashing of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide DIN & Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/148/2020- 21/1032094963(1) dated 31.03.2021 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax for the assessment year 2014-2015 and the order dated 21.02.2022 rejecting the objection of the petitioner vide letter No. ITBA/AST/F/17/2021-22/1039954650(1) issued by the Additional/Joint/ Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Department. He also prayed for a direction upon the respondents not to proceed further on the basis of the notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 and drop the proceedings after considering the objection dated 21.02.2022. Petitioner also prayed for an interim stay of the impugned notice.
[3] When the matter was taken up earlier before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 29.03.2022 while issuing notices the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 were kept in abeyance. Therefore, the
Reopening of assessment under Section 148 is invalid if based on materials already available during the original assessment, constituting a mere change of opinion without fresh evidence.
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....
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....
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.
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.
Reassessment notice u/s 148 beyond three years requires approval from Principal Chief Commissioner u/s 151(ii); approval from Principal Commissioner invalid, rendering proceedings void. 2023 proviso ....
Reassessment under Income Tax Act is impermissible on issues already addressed in a completed assessment, as it constitutes a change of opinion without new material evidence.
Reopening of assessment under the Income Tax Act requires tangible new material; mere change of opinion is insufficient.
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
