Reopening of assessment under Section 147 invalid where same materials show change of opinion and delayed reasons led to quashing

Reopening of assessment under Section 147 was held invalid where the Assessing Officer relied on the same materials available at the original assessment, constituting a change of opinion; consequence: reassessment overturned. The absence of any new facts coming to the AOs knowledge post-assessment was decisive, and all grounds were traced to the return and annexures. Further, the AO delayed furnishing reasons for reopening despite requests, contrary to the requirement to provide reasons within a reasonable time as reflected in GKN Driveshafts, which contributed to invalidating the reassessment in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2013-2014.

Analysis:
1. The Writ Appeal challenged the order passed under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2013-2014.
2. The assessment was completed earlier, but a notice under Section 148 was issued in 2018 to reopen the assessment, leading to objections by the assessee.
3. The Single Bench initially dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the need for new information or material to justify reopening.
4. The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kelvinator India Limited, highlighting the importance of a valid "reason to believe" for reopening assessments.
5. The legal principle established requires new material facts to support a "reason to believe" and not a reevaluation of existing facts.
6. The assessment was reopened on five grounds, with the assessee challenging each issue based on information already provided during the original assessment.
7. The High Court found that the reopening was a clear case of change of opinion as the same set of facts from the original assessment was used.
8. The delay in furnishing reasons for reopening was noted, but the High Court focused on the substantive issue of change of opinion rather than the procedural delay.
9. Ultimately, the Writ Appeal was allowed, setting aside the order and quashing the reopening proceedings based on the finding of change of opinion.

---