Court quashes Assessment Year 2007-08 reopening notice, deeming it a change of opinion. Invalid jurisdiction assumption.

The Court quashed the notice of reopening for Assessment Year 2007-08 as it was deemed a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer without indicating non-disclosure of material facts. The Court held that the officer's assumption of jurisdiction was not valid, leading to the petition being allowed. The notice under Section 148 and all subsequent proceedings were annulled, with each party bearing their own costs.

---

---

Issues involved:
Challenge to notice of reopening for Assessment Year 2007-08 beyond the statutory period.

Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered trust, challenged the notice of reopening issued by the Assessing Officer for the A.Y 2007-08, claiming that the original return should be considered as a response to the notice under Section 148. The reasons for reopening included irregularities in the claimed deductions under Section 11(2) of the Income-tax Act. The petitioner objected to the proceedings, which were disposed of by the Assessing Officer, leading to the present petition.

Legal Analysis:
The Assessing Officer issued the notice beyond the four-year period from the relevant assessment year. The law requires the officer to form a belief that income has escaped assessment due to non-disclosure of material facts by the assessee. In this case, the reasons for reopening did not indicate any non-disclosure by the petitioner. Previous judgments in similar cases highlighted that reopening without additional material would be a change of opinion, not permissible under the law.

Court's Decision:
The Court found that the notice was based on a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer, as the issue had been examined during the original assessment. The absence of any indication of non-disclosure led to the quashing of the notice. The Court emphasized that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable in this case.

Conclusion:
The petition was allowed, and the notice of reopening under Section 148 of the Act, along with all subsequent proceedings, was quashed. The Court held that the contention of alternative remedy was not sustainable, citing relevant judicial pronouncements. Each party was directed to bear their own costs.

---