TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Invalid Reassessment based on Change of Opinion, High Court Upholds Precedent</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Vardhman Industries</h3> Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Vardhman Industries - [2014] 363 ITR 625 Issues:1. Validity of reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Interpretation of 'reason to believe' for initiating reassessment proceedings.3. Application of the decision in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) to the present case.Issue 1: Validity of reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The case involved a challenge to the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The respondent, an assessee under the Act, had undergone a survey under section 133A, leading to the impounding of books of account and documents. Subsequently, a reassessment was initiated, resulting in an addition to the income of the assessee. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent-assessee and dismissed the one raised by the Revenue. The High Court analyzed the sequence of events, emphasizing that the impounded documents were duly considered during the initial assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. It was concluded that the reassessment was based on a change in opinion, rendering it invalid. The court held that the Assessing Officer lacked the power to initiate proceedings based solely on a change of opinion, and the reassessment should be grounded on new and unexplored sources, not a different interpretation of existing information.Issue 2: Interpretation of 'reason to believe' for initiating reassessment proceedings:The court delved into the interpretation of the term 'reason to believe' for initiating reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. It was highlighted that a mere change in the opinion of the Assessing Officer post the initial assessment under section 143(3) is insufficient grounds for validly initiating reassessment proceedings. The court emphasized that the reason to believe must stem from new and previously undiscovered sources and materials, rather than a reinterpretation of existing information. Citing the decision in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., the court underscored that the Assessing Officer's power to reassess is not for review but must be based on specific statutory preconditions.Issue 3: Application of the decision in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) to the present case:The court applied the principles established in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. to the present matter. It was clarified that the Assessing Officer's authority to reopen assessments under section 147 of the Act is not arbitrary and cannot be based solely on a change of opinion. The court reiterated that reassessment must be grounded in a valid reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, necessitating new and unexplored sources and materials. Consequently, the court found no compelling reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order, ultimately dismissing the appeal.This detailed analysis of the judgment comprehensively covers the issues involved, providing a thorough understanding of the legal intricacies and the court's reasoning in arriving at its decision.
TaxTMI 