2015 (5) TMI 221 - HC - Income Tax

High Court quashes reassessment for A.Y. 2009-2010 based on audit objections lacking independent review

The Gujarat High Court quashed and set aside the reassessment proceedings for A.Y. 2009-2010, finding that they were primarily based on audit objections ... Reopening of assessment - reassessment proceedings on the basis of the audit objections raised by the audit party - Held that:- The issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the decisions of Shilp Gravures Ltd. (2013 (11) TMI 581 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT), in the case of Vodafone West Ltd. (2015 (5) TMI 216 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) and in the case of Mayur Wovens Pvt. Ltd. (2014 (7) TMI 722 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) by which a view is taken that if the reassessment proceedings are initiated merely and solely at the instance of the audit party and when the Assessing Officer tried to justify the Assessment Orders and requested the audit party to drop the objections and there was no independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer with respect to subjective satisfaction for initiation of the reassessment proceedings, the impugned reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Thus the impugned reassessment proceedings for A.Y. 2009-2010 are hereby quashed and set aside on the aforesaid ground alone. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:Challenge to reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act based on change of opinion by the Assessing Officer and initiation of reassessment on the basis of audit objections.Issue 1: Reopening of Assessment - Change of OpinionThe petitioner, an assessee, filed a return of income for A.Y.2009-2010, which was finalized by the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, the assessee was served with a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for reopening the assessment. The assessee contended that the reassessment was a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer, as the original assessment was concluded after detailed scrutiny. The petitioner argued that the reassessment, based on disallowance of certain expenses, amounted to impermissible change of opinion. However, after considering the arguments, the court was not convinced that the reassessment was solely a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer.Issue 2: Reopening of Assessment - Basis of Audit ObjectionsThe petitioner further contended that the reassessment proceedings were initiated solely on the basis of audit objections raised by the audit party, which was impermissible. The Assessing Officer did not address this aspect in the objections raised by the assessee. To verify this claim, the court examined the original file and notings from the Assessing Officer's office. It was found that the reassessment was indeed initiated based on audit objections, despite the Assessing Officer trying to support the original assessment order. The court noted that the subjective satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment was flawed due to this contradiction. Relying on previous judgments, the court held that reassessment solely at the instance of the audit party without independent application of mind was not permissible.JudgmentThe court found that the reassessment proceedings were primarily based on audit objections and lacked independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. As a result, the court quashed and set aside the impugned reassessment proceedings for A.Y. 2009-2010. The decision was based on the grounds that the reassessment was initiated solely at the instance of the audit party without proper justification. The court referred to previous rulings to support its decision. No costs were awarded in the case.This detailed analysis covers the issues of challenge to reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act based on both the change of opinion by the Assessing Officer and the initiation of reassessment on the basis of audit objections, providing a comprehensive overview of the judgment delivered by the Gujarat High Court.