Court quashes assessment based on change of opinion, emphasizes legal principles

The court corrected a date in the original order and found that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2016-2017 was issued solely based on a change of opinion, which is impermissible. Despite the Assessing Officer's reliance on certain judgments, the court held that re-opening the assessment on a change of opinion was not allowed, quashing the reopening notice and the assessment order. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to legal principles and not re-opening assessments based on a mere change of opinion.

---

---

Issues:
1. Correcting a date in the original order.
2. Validity of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2016-2017 based on change of opinion.
3. Reliance on judgments by the Assessing Officer for re-opening the assessment.
4. Assessment order passed despite the Assessing Officer having the benefit of relevant judgments.
5. Legality of re-opening assessment based on change of opinion.
6. Petition seeking to quash the reopening notice, impugned order, and notice under Section 143(2).

Analysis:
1. The judgment began by correcting a date in the original order to ensure accuracy. The rest of the order remained unaltered.

2. The petitioner contended that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the relevant assessment year was issued solely based on a change of opinion, which is impermissible in law. The petitioner argued that the issue regarding finished stocks of a significant amount was raised during assessment proceedings, but not discussed in the assessment order. The petitioner relied on a legal precedent to support the argument that once a query is raised and responded to, the Assessing Officer is deemed to have considered it. The respondent did not dispute this argument, acknowledging the reliance on certain judgments by the Assessing Officer.

3. The court noted that the ITAT order was not binding on them and highlighted that the judgment from the Delhi High Court, which was relied upon for re-opening the assessment, was from 2013 or earlier. Despite having the benefit of this judgment, the Assessing Officer proceeded to pass the assessment order without finding any fault in the petitioner's case. The court emphasized that re-opening an assessment based on a change of opinion is not permissible, as it goes against established legal principles.

4. The court concluded that the Assessing Officer's decision to re-open the assessment was indeed a change of opinion, which is not allowed. The petition was allowed as per the prayer clause, which sought to quash the reopening notice, the impugned order, and another notice related to the assessment.

5. Ultimately, the petition was disposed of in favor of the petitioner, highlighting the importance of adhering to legal principles and not re-opening assessments based on a mere change of opinion.

---