2019 (10) TMI 740 - HC - Income Tax

Court Grants Adinterim Relief, Restrains Reopening Assessment Without New Material

SIDDHI DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS THROUGH MEHUL BALDEVBHAI PATEL (PARTNER) Versus ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE NO 3 (3)

The court granted adinterim relief to the petitioner, restraining the respondent from further actions to reopen the assessment based on a change of ... Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - HELD THAT:- As submitted that after considering the submission made by the petitioner and duly examining all aspects of the matter, the then AO had allowed the claim for deduction u/s 80IB(10) while framing assessment u/s 143(3). As submitted that therefore, the respondent seeks to reopen the assessment merely on the basis of change of opinion. Reference was also made to the sanction given by the superior officer under section 151 to submit that the same has been granted mechanically without application of mind to the facts of the present case and is based merely upon the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. As submitted that in this case, the reopening of assessment is beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and hence, in the absence of any failure on part of the petitioner to disclose full and truly all material facts, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act by the respondent Assessing Officer is without authority of law. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner, issue notice, returnable on 21.10.2019. By way of adinterim relief the respondent is restrained from proceeding further pursuant to the impugned notice dated 31.3.2018 issued under section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen the assessment of the petitioner for Assessment Year 2012-2013. Issues:1. Reopening of assessment based on change of opinion.2. Jurisdiction under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.3. Adinterim relief against the notice to reopen assessment.Analysis:Issue 1: Reopening of assessment based on change of opinionThe petitioner's advocate argued that the Assessing Officer sought to reopen the assessment without relying on any external material but solely on a different view based on existing records. The petitioner had previously provided all necessary details, including the purchase of nonagricultural land and the relevant permissions. It was contended that the reopening was merely due to a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer, which was unjustified. The advocate highlighted that the superior officer's sanction under section 151 of the Act was granted mechanically without proper evaluation of the case's specifics.Issue 2: Jurisdiction under section 147 of the Income Tax ActThe petitioner emphasized that the assessment was being reopened beyond the four-year period from the relevant assessment year. It was argued that since there was no failure on the petitioner's part to disclose all material facts, the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act was questioned as lacking legal authority. The petitioner contended that the reopening of the assessment in this case was not justified under the law.Issue 3: Adinterim relief against the notice to reopen assessmentConsidering the submissions made by the petitioner's advocate, the court issued a notice returnable on a specified date. Additionally, an adinterim relief was granted, restraining the respondent from further actions pursuant to the notice dated 31.3.2018, seeking to reopen the assessment for the relevant assessment year. The court allowed for a direct service and scheduled the matter to be heard in conjunction with another related application.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the arguments presented by the petitioner, the legal grounds questioned, and the interim relief granted by the court pending further proceedings.