Court overturns order, finding no reasonable belief for income escape assessment. Petition allowed, assessment notice quashed.

The court set aside the order rejecting the petitioner's objections, ruling that there was no reasonable belief for the Assessing Officer to conclude that income had escaped assessment. The petition was allowed, quashing the notice to reopen the assessment for the year 2003-2004 and related consequential notices.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Challenging the reopening of assessment for assessment year 2003-2004 under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on five issues raised by the Assessing Officer.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Reopening of Assessment: The petitioner, engaged in the manufacture and trading of tobacco products, received a notice under section 148 for reopening the assessment for the year 2003-2004. The petitioner contended that all material facts were disclosed during the original assessment under section 143(3) and objected to the reopening based on five issues raised by the Assessing Officer.

2. Disclosure of Facts: The petitioner filed its return of income in November 2003, disclosing a total loss. Subsequently, in response to a questionnaire in 2006, detailed information was provided on various issues. The original assessment order in March 2006 resulted in additions and disallowances, leading to a revised total loss. The notice for reopening in 2008 was challenged based on the contention that there was no reason to believe that income had escaped assessment.

3. Reasons for Reopening: The five issues raised for reopening included depreciation of property, write-off of unrecovered amounts from share sales, bad debts written off, deduction for third-party securities, and bad debts claimed. The court examined each issue and found that queries were raised during the original assessment, and explanations were provided by the petitioner.

4. Change of Opinion: The court emphasized that a mere change of opinion cannot justify reopening an assessment. It was noted that if queries were raised during the original assessment and addressed by the assessee, it indicates consideration by the Assessing Officer. The court cited a previous judgment to support the position that the reopening based on the same set of facts was merely a change of opinion.

5. Judicial Precedent: Referring to settled law, the court highlighted that reasons for reopening assessments must be examined based on the recorded reasons at the time of issuing the notice under section 148. Any attempt to impugn or supplement these reasons through affidavits or oral submissions was deemed impermissible.

6. Decision: The court set aside the order rejecting the petitioner's objections, ruling that there was no reasonable belief for the Assessing Officer to conclude that income had escaped assessment. The petition was allowed, quashing the notice to reopen the assessment for the year 2003-2004 and related consequential notices.

In conclusion, the court's detailed analysis focused on the sufficiency of disclosures during the original assessment, the relevance of the issues raised for reopening, and the legal principles governing the justification for reopening assessments based on a change of opinion.

---