Tribunal Validates Notice Date, Disallows Reopening on Opinion Change

The tribunal validated the notice issuance date but upheld the decision that the assessment reopening was based on impermissible change of opinion. The revenue's appeal was partly allowed, and cross objections were dismissed. The judgment was pronounced on 30th August 2017.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Date of issue of notice under Section 148.
2. Change of opinion for issuing notice under Section 148.
3. Merits of the case.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Date of Issue of Notice under Section 148:
The primary contention revolves around the date of issuance of the notice under Section 148. The assessee argued that the notice, although signed on 31.03.2013, was delivered to the post office on 03.04.2013, which should be considered the issuance date. This delay would render the notice invalid as it exceeded the four-year limit without the requisite approval from the Commissioner of Income Tax. The Ld.CIT(A) supported the assessee's view, invalidating the notice for being issued beyond the permissible period. However, the revenue contended that the notice was effectively issued on 31.03.2013 when it was handed over to the despatch section, which operates under the supervision of the Addl. CIT/Joint CIT. The tribunal upheld the revenue's argument, noting that the internal procedure of the department and the despatch register indicated the notice was indeed issued on 31.03.2013. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the Ld.CIT(A)'s order on this issue, validating the notice issued within the four-year limit.

2. Change of Opinion for Issuing Notice under Section 148:
The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment, alleging it was based on a mere change of opinion without any new tangible material. The Ld.CIT(A) agreed, citing that the original assessment under Section 143(3) was completed after thorough verification of all details and books of accounts. The reopening was deemed a mere re-evaluation of the same information. The tribunal reviewed the reasons for reopening, which included discrepancies in the closing stock and unaccounted purchases and sales. The revenue argued that the assessing officer did not previously examine these specific issues. However, the tribunal found that the information leading to the reopening was already available during the original assessment, and no new tangible material was presented. Thus, the tribunal upheld the Ld.CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the reopening was indeed based on a change of opinion, which is impermissible.

3. Merits of the Case:
Given the tribunal's decision that the assessment was reopened based on a change of opinion, it deemed it unnecessary to adjudicate the merits of the additions made. The assessment was struck down on procedural grounds, rendering the discussion on merits moot.

Cross Objection:
The cross objection by the assessee was supportive of the Ld.CIT(A)'s order. Since the tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal on the grounds of change of opinion, it found no need to separately adjudicate the cross objection.

Conclusion:
The tribunal partly allowed the revenue's appeal by validating the date of notice issuance but upheld the Ld.CIT(A)'s decision on the improper reopening of the assessment due to a change of opinion. Consequently, the cross objections were dismissed. The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 30th August 2017.

---