Court quashes reassessment notice under Section 148, deeming it impermissible. Petition allowed without costs.

The court quashed the notice issued under Section 148, setting aside all further proceedings. The petition was allowed as the reassessment was deemed a mere change of opinion, not permissible under the law. No costs were ordered, and urgent certified photocopies of the judgment were permitted upon compliance with formalities.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Issuance of notice under Section 148 after the expiry of 4 years.
3. Justification of reopening assessment based on the same materials previously scrutinized.
4. Classification of non-compete fees as "Long Term Capital Gain" vs. "Business Income."

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The petitioner challenged the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 by the Assessing Officer, arguing that the criteria under the first proviso to Section 147 were not met. The court found that there was no omission or failure on the part of the petitioner in disclosing all relevant material facts during the original assessment under Section 143. The materials upon which the Assessing Officer based the reassessment were already available during the original scrutiny, making the assumption of jurisdiction invalid.

Issue 2: Issuance of notice under Section 148 after the expiry of 4 years
The court examined whether the issuance of the notice under Section 148 after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year was lawful. It was determined that the notice was invalid as the criteria under the first proviso to Section 147 were not satisfied. The Assessing Officer could not establish any omission or failure by the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment.

Issue 3: Justification of reopening assessment based on the same materials previously scrutinized
The court scrutinized whether the reopening of the assessment under Section 147, based on the same materials that were available during the original assessment, was justified. It concluded that the reopening was not justified, as it was merely a change of opinion by the current Assessing Officer. The non-compete fees had already been examined, verified, and accepted as "Long Term Capital Gain" during the original assessment under Section 143 (3).

Issue 4: Classification of non-compete fees as "Long Term Capital Gain" vs. "Business Income"
The court addressed whether the non-compete fees should be classified as "Long Term Capital Gain" or "Business Income." The original assessment had classified the non-compete fees as "Long Term Capital Gain," and the current Assessing Officer's attempt to reclassify it as "Business Income" under Section 28 (V-A) was deemed a mere change of opinion. The court held that the reassessment on this basis was not permissible, as it relied on the same materials previously considered.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned notice dated 29th March 2019 issued under Section 148 and set aside all further proceedings based on the notice. The petition was allowed, and the court emphasized that the reopening of the assessment was based on a mere change of opinion, which is not permissible under the law. No costs were ordered, and urgent certified photocopies of the judgment were permitted upon compliance with requisite formalities.

---