Court invalidates re-assessment notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act due to lack of material particulars.

The court allowed the writ petition challenging the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings. The court found the notice and proceedings invalid due to the lack of an allegation of failure to disclose material particulars by the assessee and considered the re-assessment as a case of impermissible change of opinion by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the notice and all proceedings, including the order, without awarding costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Allegation of failure to disclose material particulars by the assessee.
3. Change of opinion by the Assessing Officer.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

The writ petition challenges the notice dated 23.08.2014 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all subsequent proceedings, including the order dated 26.09.2014. The petitioner contends that the re-assessment proceedings were initiated after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year without fulfilling the pre-conditions required by law. Specifically, there was no failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material particulars necessary for the assessment. The court found that the reasons provided for initiating re-assessment did not even allege such a failure, making the notice and proceedings invalid.

2. Allegation of failure to disclose material particulars by the assessee:

The petitioner argued that the re-assessment proceedings were invalid as there was no failure to disclose material particulars. The court noted that the reasons for reopening the assessment did not contain any allegation of such failure by the assessee. The court referred to several decisions, including Global Signal Cables (India) Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT, which held that in the absence of an allegation of failure to disclose material facts, any action under Section 147 beyond the four-year period would be without jurisdiction. The court concluded that the notice and proceedings were invalid due to the lack of such an allegation.

3. Change of opinion by the Assessing Officer:

The petitioner also argued that the re-assessment was a case of change of opinion, as the issue sought to be re-assessed had already been considered during the original assessment under Section 143(3). The court noted that the original assessment involved a detailed examination of the share application money received by the assessee, including the issuance of a questionnaire and notices under Section 133(6). The court referred to the decision in Lahmeyer Holding GMBH v. Deputy Director of Income Tax, which held that re-assessment would be invalid if an issue or query was raised and answered by the assessee in the original assessment, and the Assessing Officer did not make any addition. The court concluded that the present case was indeed one of change of opinion, making the re-assessment proceedings impermissible.

Conclusion:

On both grounds-the lack of an allegation of failure to disclose material particulars and the change of opinion-the court allowed the writ petition. The notice under Section 148 dated 28.03.2014 and all proceedings pursuant thereto, including the order dated 26.09.2014, were quashed and set aside. There was no order as to costs.

---