Court quashes assessment order, finds no basis for reopening, deems notice withdrawn.

The Court allowed the petition and issued a Writ of Certiorari to quash and set aside the notice under Section 148 dated 27/03/2019, the subsequent order disposing of the petitioner's objections, and the assessment order and notice of demand dated 09/12/2019. The Court found no tangible basis for re-opening the assessment and considered the Assessing Officer's actions as a clear case of change of opinion. The Court accepted the apology for non-compliance with the mandatory period of 4 weeks prescribed in a previous judgment and deemed the Assessment Order and notice of demand as withdrawn.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of notice dated 27/03/2019 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Compliance with the mandatory period of 4 weeks prescribed in the judgment of Asian Paints Ltd. v/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.
3. Whether there was a failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose material facts.
4. Consideration of whether an HUF can be a partner in a firm under the provisions of Indian Partnership Act, 1932.

Issue 1: Validity of Notice dated 27/03/2019 under Section 148:
The petitioner challenged a notice dated 27/03/2019 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court examined the reasons for re-opening the assessment provided in a communication dated 07/06/2019. It was noted that the Assessing Officer must have tangible material to show an escapement of income and a failure to disclose material facts. However, the Court found no tangible basis in the reasons provided for re-opening the assessment. The Assessing Officer's contention regarding an HUF being a partner in the firm was deemed a clear case of change of opinion, as the information was available before the original assessment order was passed.

Issue 2: Compliance with Mandatory Period of 4 Weeks:
The Assessment Order and notice of demand dated 09/12/2019 were passed without waiting for the mandatory period of 4 weeks as prescribed in the Asian Paints Ltd. judgment. The Officer who passed the Assessment Order expressed ignorance of the judgment and tendered an apology. The Court accepted the apology and considered the Assessment Order and notice of demand as withdrawn.

Issue 3: Failure to Disclose Material Facts:
The Assessing Officer contended that the petitioner had not complied with the provisions of Section 184 of the Act regarding a partner being an HUF. However, the Court found this to be a case of change of opinion as the information was available before the original assessment order. There was no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose material facts, and the Court did not delve into the issue of compliance with Section 184.

Issue 4: HUF as a Partner in a Firm:
The Court addressed the question of whether an HUF can be a partner in a firm under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. While not opining on this matter, the Court emphasized that the original Assessment Order's silence on this issue indicated acceptance by the Assessing Officer that an HUF could be a partner in the firm.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the petition and issued a Writ of Certiorari to quash and set aside the notice under Section 148 dated 27/03/2019, the subsequent order disposing of the petitioner's objections, and the assessment order and notice of demand dated 09/12/2019.

---