Income Tax Notice Invalidated Due to Opinion Change, Not Disclosure Failure; Writ Petition Granted.

The HC concluded that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion rather than a failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. Consequently, the notice lacked jurisdiction. The writ petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute according to the specified prayer clauses.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue the notice after the expiry of four years.
3. Obligation of the assessee to disclose all material facts.

Summary:

1. Validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The petitioner challenged the notice dated May 31, 2001, issued by respondent No. 1 u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1991-92. The notice did not disclose the reasons recorded by respondent No. 1 u/s 148(2) of the Act. The petitioner argued that all primary facts necessary for assessment were fully and truly disclosed, and the notice was issued based on a change of opinion due to subsequent court decisions, which is not a valid ground for reopening the assessment after four years.

2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue the notice after the expiry of four years:
The court examined sections 147, 148, and 149 of the Act, noting that the power to reopen an assessment is subject to the proviso that no action shall be taken after four years unless there is a failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The court emphasized that the "reason to believe" must be held in good faith and not merely as a pretence. The court found that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer did not indicate any failure by the assessee to disclose material facts but were based on a change of opinion due to subsequent judicial decisions.

3. Obligation of the assessee to disclose all material facts:
The court held that the assessee had fully and truly disclosed all material facts necessary for the assessment. The assessment order dated March 22, 1994, was made after scrutinizing all facts and materials. The court reiterated that it is not the duty of the assessee to point out legal inferences from disclosed facts, which is the responsibility of the Assessing Officer. The court cited several judgments supporting this view, including ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das and decisions from the Gujarat, Calcutta, and Madras High Courts.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the notice issued u/s 148 was based on a change of opinion and not on the failure of the assessee to disclose material facts. Therefore, it lacked jurisdiction and was invalid. The writ petition was allowed, making the rule absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), and (c).

---