Court quashes assessment order for 2012-13 due to procedural flaws, emphasizing adherence to legal requirements.

The court allowed the petition, quashing the notice and assessment order related to assessment year 2012-13. It found the reopening of assessment to be based on a change of opinion, rendering the notice unsustainable. Emphasizing the importance of following legal procedures, the court held that the Assessing Officer was unjustified in passing the assessment order without addressing the objections, even though they were filed late. The judgment upheld the principles set by the Supreme Court regarding the disposal of objections in assessment proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act
Validity of assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 147
Application of change of opinion principle in reopening assessment
Disposal of objections by Assessing Officer
Compliance with Supreme Court decision in GKN Driveshafts case

Analysis:
The petitioner, a public charitable trust, challenged a notice dated 20.03.2017 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act and an assessment order dated 03.10.2017 under section 143(3) read with section 147 for assessment year 2012-13. The notice was based on disallowance of carry forward deficit from the earlier year, leading to a demand of Rs. 47,03,720. The petitioner contended that the reopening was a mere change of opinion as the issue had been decided in their favor during the original assessment proceedings. The respondent argued that the objections were filed late, causing delay in reassessment. The court considered the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment and the original assessment order, where the deficit issue had been allowed. It concluded that the reopening was indeed based on a change of opinion, rendering the notice unsustainable.

The court highlighted that objections were filed before the assessment order was passed, and as per the Supreme Court decision in GKN Driveshafts case, the Assessing Officer was obligated to decide the objections by a reasoned order. Even though objections were filed late, the Assessing Officer was required to follow the procedure set by the Supreme Court. The court referred to a specific time frame for objections but clarified that missing the time limit does not exempt the Assessing Officer from deciding the objections. Therefore, the court found the Assessing Officer unjustified in passing the assessment order without addressing the objections, especially when the notice itself was deemed unsustainable.

Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashing the notice and assessment order related to assessment year 2012-13. The judgment emphasized the importance of following legal procedures, even in cases of delayed objections, and upheld the principles set by the Supreme Court regarding the disposal of objections in assessment proceedings.

---