Retrospective tax amendment invalid, reassessment quashed.

The court held that the reassessment proceedings initiated based on the retrospective amendment to Section 80IA were impermissible as they constituted a mere change of opinion. The court allowed all petitions, quashing the notice under Section 148 and consequential proceedings, with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Reassessment proceedings under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Retrospective amendment to Section 80IA(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Validity of reopening assessment based on the retrospective amendment.
4. Change of opinion by the Assessing Officer.
5. Vires of Section 80IA(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Reassessment Proceedings under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:

The petitioner challenged the notice issued under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the grounds that the reassessment was based solely on the retrospective amendment to the explanation under sub-section (13) of Section 80IA. The petitioner contended that the reassessment was merely a change of opinion, as the deduction under Section 80IA had already been allowed during the original scrutiny assessment.

2. Retrospective Amendment to Section 80IA(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:

The amendment to the explanation under sub-section (13) of Section 80IA, introduced by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009, with retrospective effect from April 1, 2000, clarified that the deduction under Section 80IA would not be admissible to an assessee carrying on a business in the nature of a works contract. The petitioner argued that this amendment could not justify reopening the assessment, as it was merely clarificatory in nature and did not introduce a new provision of law.

3. Validity of Reopening Assessment Based on the Retrospective Amendment:

The court referred to its previous decisions, including Parikshit Industries v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and Katira Construction Ltd. v. Union of India, which held that the explanation added to Section 80IA was clarificatory and did not amount to the introduction of a new provision of law with retrospective operation. Therefore, reopening the assessment based on this explanation was not permissible, as it would constitute a change of opinion.

4. Change of Opinion by the Assessing Officer:

The court observed that the reassessment proceedings were initiated solely on the basis of the insertion of the explanation to Section 80IA, which had been held to be clarificatory in nature. The court reiterated that if all the materials regarding the assessee's activities were available on record and the benefit of the provision had already been granted, reassessment proceedings could not be initiated based on the addition of the explanation. This constituted a mere change of opinion, which is not permissible for reopening an assessment.

5. Vires of Section 80IA(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:

The petitioner had also challenged the vires of Section 80IA(4) by way of a Special Civil Application, which was decided in a group of petitions. The court upheld the validity of the provision, stating that the explanation to sub-section (13) of Section 80IA was introduced to clarify doubts and remove confusions, and it did not amount to a new provision of law with retrospective operation.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer based on the insertion of the explanation to Section 80IA were merely a change of opinion and not permissible. The court allowed all three petitions, quashing the impugned notice issued under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings. The rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs.

---