Reassessment under sections 147/148 invalid when based solely on Assessing Officer's change of opinion

The Bombay HC held that reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 cannot be initiated based on mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer. Where all facts were available during original assessment and queries were raised and replied to, the AO cannot reopen assessment without reasonable belief that income escaped taxation. The court emphasized that assessment orders need not contain detailed discussion of every query if the AO was satisfied with responses. The HC set aside the section 148 notice and reassessment order, ruling in favor of the assessee as the reopening was impermissible being based solely on change of opinion.

---

---

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

1. Whether the challenge to the reopening of assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") can be entertained by writ petition after the assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 has been passed, or whether the remedy lies exclusively in appeal under the Act.

2. Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in proceeding with the reassessment and passing the assessment order dated 19 December 2013 despite the petitioner's objection to reopening being pending before the Court and the four-week moratorium period mandated by precedent.

3. Whether the reopening notice dated 28 March 2013 issued under Section 148 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 was valid, particularly whether the reopening was on the basis of tangible material or merely a change of opinion.

4. Whether the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, a jurisdictional prerequisite for reopening assessment within four years.

5. Whether the Assessing Officer's rejection of the petitioner's objection to reopening assessment was sustainable, especially in light of the petitioner's prior disclosures and the principle of consistency in tax treatment across assessment years.

On the first issue regarding the maintainability of the writ petition challenging reopening after passing of the assessment order, the revenue contended that the petitioner should have preferred an appeal under the Act. However, the Court noted that the Assessing Officer had rejected the petitioner's objection to reopening by order dated 20 November 2013, which was a distinct step preceding the final assessment order dated 19 December 2013. The Court relied on the precedent set in Asian Paints Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, which mandates a four-week period post rejection of objections before further proceedings can continue. The Assessing Officer's passing of the assessment order within this period was held to be in violation of this principle, rendering the assessment order liable to be set aside. The Court rejected the revenue's claim of ignorance of the Asian Paints decision and held that passing the assessment order in undue haste was an attempt to preempt judicial scrutiny, which was not bonafide.

Regarding the validity of the reopening notice, the Court examined the legal framework governing reopening under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act. It reiterated that reopening within four years requires a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, and that reopening cannot be based merely on a change of opinion. The Court emphasized that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction must be based on tangible material, not mere inferences or opinions.

The petitioner had originally filed its return disclosing income from business and capital gains, and during assessment proceedings had furnished detailed explanations and documents, including reliance on CBDT Circular No.4/2007, to support the claim that gains from sale of shares were capital gains and not business income. The Assessing Officer had accepted this explanation in the original assessment order dated 12 October 2010, disallowing certain expenses under Section 14A but otherwise completing the assessment.

The reopening notice dated 28 March 2013 alleged that the petitioner was engaged in share trading business and had manipulated accounts to classify business income as capital gains to avail lower tax rates. However, the Court found that the very issue of classification of income was raised and considered during the original assessment proceedings, as evidenced by the petitioner's detailed replies and documents furnished. The Court held that this amounted to a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer, which is not a valid ground for reopening.

The revenue argued that the reopening was based on fresh tangible material in the form of an internal audit report dated 29 September 2011, which had not been considered earlier. However, the Court observed that the reasons recorded in the reopening notice and the order rejecting objections did not mention this audit report as the basis for reopening. The Court referred to the principle established in Hindustan Lever vs. Wadkar that challenges to reopening can only be resisted on the basis of reasons recorded at the time of issuing the notice, and no new reasons can be introduced subsequently. Moreover, the audit report itself was found to be an opinion or inference drawn from material already available during the original assessment, not new tangible facts.

The Court also addressed the factual correctness of the Assessing Officer's claim that the petitioner had failed to furnish sample contract notes, Demat account statements, and shareholding patterns during assessment proceedings. The petitioner had indeed furnished these documents by letter dated 13 September 2010. This factual inaccuracy further undermined the validity of the reopening.

On the issue of consistency, the Court noted that in earlier and subsequent assessment years, the petitioner had been treated as an investor rather than a trader in shares. In particular, for A.Y. 2009-10, the Assessing Officer had treated losses on sale of shares as capital losses, not business losses, reflecting the view that the petitioner's activity was investment-based. The Court cited the principle of consistency as held in CIT vs. Gopal Purohit, which, although not strictly binding in tax matters due to the separate nature of each assessment year, nonetheless requires uniform treatment where facts are identical. The Court found no new facts justifying a departure from this consistent treatment for A.Y. 2008-09.

Summarizing the Court's conclusions:

- The assessment order dated 19 December 2013 was set aside for being passed in violation of the four-week moratorium period following rejection of objections to reopening.

- The reopening notice dated 28 March 2013 and the order dated 20 November 2013 rejecting objections were set aside as they were based on a mere change of opinion without any fresh tangible material.

- The Assessing Officer lacked a reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, a jurisdictional prerequisite for reopening within four years.

- The factual basis for rejecting the petitioner's objection was incorrect, as relevant documents had been furnished during original assessment proceedings.

- The principle of consistency in tax treatment across assessment years supported the petitioner's claim that gains from sale of shares were capital gains, not business income.

Crucial legal reasoning preserved verbatim includes:

"It is axiomatic that the law declared by this Court is binding on all authorities functioning within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is not open to the Assessing Officer to feign ignorance of the law declared by this Court and pass orders in defiance of the law laid down by this Court."

"The power to reassess is not a power to review. Further reopening must be on the basis of tangible material."

"The reasons for reopening an assessment has to be tested/examined only on the basis of the reasons recorded at the time of issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen an assessment. These reasons cannot be improved upon and/or supplemented much less substituted by affidavit and /or oral submissions."

"Merely because the petitioner's claim for being charged to tax under the head 'capital gain' instead of the head "Profits and gains of business or profession had been accepted for earlier and subsequent years by the revenue it would not follow that for assessment year 2008-09 under consideration, the same has to be blindly accepted. It is submitted that each assessment year is separate assessment year. Therefore, in the present facts the Assessing Officer has reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and on the basis of the such belief is entitled to reopen the Assessment." (Revenue's argument rejected on facts)

"Once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and the assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query raised was a subject of consideration of the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment."

"The internal audit report dated 29 September 2011 is an opinion/inference on facts i.e. the accounts and therefore, would not be tangible material to reopen an assessment."

"Though the principle of res judicata is not applicable to tax matters as each year is separate and distinct, nevertheless where facts are identical from year to year, there has to be uniformity and consistency in treatment."

The Court's final determinations were that the reopening notice, the order rejecting objections, and the subsequent assessment order were all unsustainable in law, and therefore all were set aside. The petition was allowed without any order as to costs.

---