Invalid Section 148 notices for reassessment quashed by court. Assessing officer's opinion change not sufficient.

The court held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for reopening assessments were without legal authority, based on a mere change of opinion by the assessing officer. The court quashed the notices and allowed the writ applications filed by the assessee, finding no justification for the reassessment. The assessing officer's reasons were deemed impermissible under the law, as they did not indicate any income escaping assessment.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the reopening of assessments under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of claims for deductions under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Adequacy of the original disclosure of material facts by the assessee.
4. Alleged change of opinion by the assessing officer.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Reopening of Assessments under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The court examined whether the revenue was justified in reopening the assessments for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15. The notices for reopening were based on the alleged incorrect claims for deductions and unexplained cash deposits. The court noted that the original assessments were framed under Section 143(3) of the Act, and during those proceedings, the assessee had provided detailed responses to the notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act. The court emphasized that a mere change of opinion does not confer jurisdiction upon the assessing officer to issue notice under Section 148.

2. Validity of Claims for Deductions under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The court observed that during the original assessment proceedings, the issue of deduction under Section 80IB(10) was thoroughly examined. The assessee had furnished all necessary approvals and documents, including the approval from the Town Planning & Valuation Department, Ahmedabad, and the Notification of village Bopal under AUDA jurisdiction. The assessing officer had considered these details and concluded not to disallow the deductions claimed by the assessee.

3. Adequacy of the Original Disclosure of Material Facts by the Assessee:
The court found that the assessee had disclosed all material facts fully and truly during the original assessment proceedings. This included the approval for the housing project, details of commission expenses, and cash deposits. The court noted that there was no false or untrue declaration on the part of the assessee regarding the approval of the project by the concerned authorities.

4. Alleged Change of Opinion by the Assessing Officer:
The court held that the reasons recorded by the assessing officer for reopening the assessments were merely a change of opinion, which is not permissible under the law. The court cited precedents, including the Supreme Court's rulings in Binani Industries Ltd. Vs. CCT and A.L.A Firm Vs. CIT, emphasizing that a mere fresh application of mind to the same set of facts does not justify reopening assessments.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the impugned notices under Section 148 of the Act were issued without authority of law and were based on a mere change of opinion. The court quashed the notices dated 31.03.2018, 27.03.2019, and 28.03.2019, thereby allowing the writ applications filed by the assessee. The court found no basis or jurisdiction for the assessing officer to form a belief that any income had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. Consequently, all writ applications were allowed with no order as to costs.

---