Court quashes tax assessment reopening notice; cites lack of valid reasons. Assessing Officer's actions overturned.

The Court quashed the notice for reopening the assessment under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, finding that it was based on a mere change of opinion and lacked valid reasons. The Court held that the Assessing Officer had already considered the petitioner's claim during the original assessment and issued the notice without proper examination of all relevant evidence. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, setting aside the notice for reopening without imposing any costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to notice for reopening assessment under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 based on change of opinion.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the notice for reopening issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner claimed deduction of depreciation for a high efficiency boiler purchased at Rs. 20,00,00,000. The respondent initially accepted the claim of depreciation under section 143(1) of the Act. However, the respondent later issued a notice for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 1995-96, stating that income from business had escaped assessment. The petitioner contended that the notice for reopening was based on a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible under section 148 of the Act.

The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer had already formed an opinion while allowing the depreciation claim, and hence, there was no valid reason for reopening the assessment. The petitioner further claimed that the reasons recorded for reopening were vague and lacked consideration of the evidence on record. The respondent, on the other hand, asserted that the notice for reopening was valid as it fell within the four-year period and was based on audit reports.

The Court examined the submissions and evidence on record. It noted that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind while accepting the petitioner's claim during the original assessment under section 143(1) of the Act. The Court found that the Assessing Officer had referred to previous history and details provided by the petitioner before accepting the claim. Despite this, the notice for reopening was issued without considering all the relevant materials on record, including evidence of installation before 31st March, 1995. The Court concluded that there was no valid basis for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act and quashed the notice for reopening.

In light of the above analysis and the provisions of the Act, the Court allowed the petition, making the rule absolute and setting aside the notice for reopening the assessment without any order as to costs.

---