Court rules against tax reopening based on change of opinion, quashes notice and assessment order

The court held that the reopening of the assessment was not justified as it was based on a change of opinion. The court quashed the notice issued under Section 148 and set aside the subsequent assessment order. It emphasized that the technical mistake by the auditor did not amount to a failure to disclose material facts, and the company had fully complied with the disclosure requirements during the original assessment.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment.
2. Reopening of assessment based on change of opinion.
3. Validity of reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax escaped assessment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment:
The writ applicant, a company, filed its return for the A.Y. 2012-13, declaring a loss and claiming depreciation on new fixed assets. The assessment was initially completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer later issued a notice under Section 148 to reopen the assessment, alleging that the company had not disclosed the date on which the new assets were put to use, as required in the auditor's report (Form 3CD). This omission led the Assessing Officer to believe that the assets were not put to use during the year, making the depreciation claim invalid. However, the court found that the company had provided all necessary details during the original assessment, including purchase bills and evidence of the dates the assets were put to use. The court concluded that there was no failure on the part of the company to disclose material facts fully and truly.

2. Reopening of assessment based on change of opinion:
The court examined whether the reopening of the assessment was based on a change of opinion. It was noted that during the original assessment, the Assessing Officer had thoroughly examined the details provided by the company, including the depreciation claim. The court observed that the reopening was primarily based on the same set of facts and materials that were already scrutinized during the original assessment. The court cited the case of Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd Vs. ACIT, which held that reopening an assessment merely due to a change of opinion is impermissible. The court concluded that the reopening of the assessment in this case was indeed based on a change of opinion, which is not allowed under the law.

3. Validity of reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax escaped assessment:
The Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening the assessment included the belief that the company had not put the new assets to use during the year, thus making the depreciation claim invalid. The court found that the company had disclosed all relevant details during the original assessment, and the omission by the auditor to mention the date in Form 3CD was a technical mistake. The court referred to the case of Calcutta Discount Company Ltd, where it was held that once all primary facts are disclosed, it is the Assessing Officer's responsibility to draw inferences. The court determined that the primary facts were disclosed, and the technical mistake by the auditor did not constitute a failure to disclose material facts. Consequently, the court held that the reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment were not valid.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the reopening of the assessment was not justified and was based on a change of opinion. The court quashed the notice issued under Section 148 and set aside the subsequent assessment order. The court emphasized that the technical mistake by the auditor did not amount to a failure to disclose material facts, and the company had fully complied with the disclosure requirements during the original assessment.

---