Court quashes re-assessment order and proceedings for lack of jurisdiction. Writ petition allowed.

The court quashed the re-assessment order dated 28.03.2013 and the proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 29.03.2012 under Section 148, deeming them without jurisdiction and not sustainable in law. The writ petition was allowed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the re-assessment order dated 28.03.2013.
2. Jurisdiction of the re-assessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Failure to disclose material facts by the assessee.
4. Change of opinion by the Assessing Officer.
5. Addition of income not originally stated in the re-assessment notice.
6. Time-barred reassessment for earlier years.
7. Compliance with procedural requirements under Sections 148 and 147 of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Re-assessment Order:
The writ petition challenges the re-assessment order dated 28.03.2013, claiming it was issued without jurisdiction. The original assessment was completed on 20.03.2006, and the notice under Section 148 was issued on 29.03.2012, beyond the four-year period, invoking the first proviso to Section 147. The reasons for re-opening the case were related to the assessee's failure to disclose certain facts and the short levy of interest under Section 234D.

2. Jurisdiction of the Re-assessment Proceedings:
The petitioner argued that no additions were made based on the original reasons (a) and (b) provided for re-opening the assessment. Instead, the re-assessment focused on a new issue regarding the deduction claimed under Section 36(1)(viia). The court found that the re-assessment order did not pertain to the assessment year 2005-06 but to preceding years, which was not the subject matter of the original notice under Section 148.

3. Failure to Disclose Material Facts by the Assessee:
The court noted that the reasons for re-opening the assessment did not specify which material facts were not fully and truly disclosed by the assessee. The reasons indicated a mistake on the part of the Assessing Officer rather than a failure by the assessee to disclose material facts.

4. Change of Opinion by the Assessing Officer:
The court held that the re-assessment order amounted to a change of opinion, which is not permissible in law. The specific issue of deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) was raised and answered during the original assessment proceedings, and no disallowance was made at that time.

5. Addition of Income Not Originally Stated in the Re-assessment Notice:
The court referred to various judgments, including Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. and Jet Airways (I) Ltd., which established that if no additions are made based on the original reasons for re-opening the assessment, the Assessing Officer cannot independently assess some other income without issuing a fresh notice under Section 148.

6. Time-barred Reassessment for Earlier Years:
The court found that the disallowance of Rs. 453,96,44,854/- pertained to an earlier year, which was not the subject matter of the re-assessment and was time-barred. The reassessment for an earlier year was impermissible as it would amount to a change of opinion.

7. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under Sections 148 and 147:
The court emphasized the importance of compliance with procedural requirements under Sections 148 and 147. The reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment must be recorded before issuing a notice under Section 148. The note-sheet entry of 16.03.2013 could not be regarded as a notice under Section 148 or as reasons to believe.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the re-assessment order dated 28.03.2013 and the proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 29.03.2012 under Section 148, deeming them without jurisdiction and not sustainable in law. The writ petition was allowed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.

---