Notices under section 148 quashed as reassessment arose from mere change of opinion; section 43B and Explanation 1 insufficient

HC quashed notices issued under section 148 and set aside reassessment proceedings for the relevant year, holding that the AO's recorded reasons amounted to a mere change of opinion rather than a bona fide belief of escapement of income. The court found the reasons lacked reasonable nexus to material establishing escapement, and the AO could not expand jurisdiction by framing reasons or relying on Explanation 1. Claims about section 43B adjustments and valuation of closing stock did not supply requisite material to sustain reassessment; accordingly the reassessment notices were invalidated.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of notices u/s 148 for reassessment.
2. Applicability of section 43B adjustments.
3. Change of opinion by the Assessing Officer.
4. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under section 147.

Summary:

1. Validity of Notices u/s 148 for Reassessment:
The petitioner, a private limited company and an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961, challenged the notices issued u/s 148 for reassessment of its income for the assessment year 1986-87. The notices were issued on March 7, 1990, and subsequently on March 27, 1991, after the initial notice was withdrawn. The petitioner contended that the question about the operation of section 43B had been duly considered by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment, and the claim was allowed after application of mind, supported by the decision in Lakhanpal National Ltd. v. ITO [1986] 162 ITR 240.

2. Applicability of Section 43B Adjustments:
The petitioner had adjusted the value of opening and closing stock by excluding the component of customs duty as a consequence of its treatment under section 43B. This adjustment was in line with the decision in Lakhanpal's case, which had not been reversed or overruled. The Assessing Officer had allowed this adjustment during the original assessment after making inquiries and considering the petitioner's claims.

3. Change of Opinion by the Assessing Officer:
The court opined that section 147 does not confer jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to review his own order on a mere change of opinion. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for issuing the notice disclosed that the case was nothing but a mere change of opinion on facts already before the Assessing Officer during the original assessment. The court reiterated that mere change of opinion does not confer jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings.

4. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under Section 147:
The court emphasized that for the Assessing Officer to have jurisdiction u/s 147, there must be material having a reasonable nexus to the formation of the opinion about escapement of income. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer did not disclose any new material or error that would justify reopening the assessment. The reference to the decision in CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. [1991] 188 ITR 44 was found to be irrelevant to the controversy at hand.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned notices for initiating reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 1986-87, holding that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer disclosed no more than a mere change of opinion. The petitions succeeded, and the rule was made absolute in each case, with no order as to costs.

---