Court invalidates reassessment under Section 148 of Income Tax Act for AY 2011-12 as change of opinion.

The court held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 was invalid. It was deemed as a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer, as the necessary facts were already on record during the original comprehensive assessment. The court concluded that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts, leading to the allowance of the writ appeal, setting aside the previous order, and quashing the reassessment proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Alleged failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment.
3. Whether the reopening constitutes a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer.
4. Whether the original assessment was a limited scrutiny or a comprehensive scrutiny.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reopening the Assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The appellant/assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment for the Assessment Year 2011-12, initiated by the respondent through proceedings dated 29.03.2018 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The initial assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 20.01.2014. The reopening notice was issued after four years, invoking the first proviso under Section 147, which restricts reopening unless there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment.

2. Alleged Failure to Disclose Fully and Truly All Material Facts Necessary for the Assessment:
The Assessing Officer cited three reasons for reopening: AIR 26AS-194 J omitted, excess investment unexplained, and investment in pursuance of house property. However, there was no specific allegation that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The court noted that the reasons for reopening were derived from the assessee's records, indicating that the necessary facts were already on record at the time of the original assessment.

3. Whether the Reopening Constitutes a Change of Opinion by the Assessing Officer:
The assessee argued that the reopening was a clear case of change of opinion, as the original assessment involved detailed scrutiny where all relevant details were furnished and considered. The court found that the original assessment was comprehensive, involving multiple hearings and detailed submissions by the assessee, including documents related to professional fees, property transactions, and investments. The reopening was based on the same materials that were available during the original assessment, which the court concluded amounted to a change of opinion and a review of the earlier order, which is impermissible in law.

4. Whether the Original Assessment was a Limited Scrutiny or a Comprehensive Scrutiny:
The Assessing Officer contended that the original assessment was a limited scrutiny focusing only on the taxability of the sale of property. However, the court found no evidence on record to support this claim. The notice issued under Section 142(1) and the subsequent detailed submissions by the assessee indicated that the assessment covered various aspects, including professional income, property transactions, and investments. The court concluded that the original assessment was not limited but comprehensive, and the reopening was not justified on the grounds of limited scrutiny.

Conclusion:
The court held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The writ appeal was allowed, the order in the writ petition was set aside, and the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

---