Court quashes tax notice due to errors in reopening process, emphasizing need for proper reasoning and non-change of opinion.

The Court quashed the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 and the order dealing with objections, ruling in favor of the petitioner due to the non-application of mind in recording reasons for reopening and errors in the process. The Court held that the reassessment was impermissible as it was based on the same material from the original assessment, amounting to a change of opinion. The Court emphasized the importance of proper application of mind in such matters and set aside the entire proceedings, making the rule absolute with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 for reopening assessment for Assessment Year 2004-05 based on change of opinion and non-application of mind.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a retail company, challenged a notice dated 31st March 2009 under section 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961, seeking to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2004-05. The petitioner argued that the notice lacked jurisdiction as it was issued without a valid belief that income had escaped assessment, relying on the same set of material and alleging a change of opinion. The petitioner contended that the reasons for reopening showed a lack of application of mind, and even the approval under section 151 of the Act seemed to be granted without proper consideration. The reassessment was proposed to disallow "store launching expenses" as capital expenditure based on material from subsequent years.

The petitioner had debited revenue expenses incurred before opening new stores under "store launching expenses" in its accounts. These costs included advertisement, promotion, employee recruitment, and training. Initially, the expenses were treated as "deferred revenue expenses" until 31st March 2003, as per the accounting policy explained in the annual accounts. The petitioner amortized certain expenses in the year under review, claiming them as revenue expenditure, which the Assessing Officer now sought to disallow as capital expenditure.

During the assessment, the Assessing Officer raised queries regarding a change in the accounting policy for store launching expenses from 1st April 2003, to which the petitioner provided explanations. The Court noted that there was a full and true disclosure by the petitioner, and the Assessing Officer had no valid reason to conclude that income had escaped assessment. The Court cited previous judgments emphasizing that if an assessee responds to queries during assessment, it indicates the Assessing Officer's consideration of the matter, even if not explicitly mentioned in the assessment order.

The Court found that there was no new information or fact prompting the reassessment, as it was based on material already on record during the original assessment. Reopening the assessment on the same material to take a different view amounted to a change of opinion, which is impermissible. The Court referred to previous decisions holding that reassessment cannot be initiated solely on a change of opinion. The Court also noted errors in the reasons recorded for reopening, indicating a lack of application of mind by the Assessing Officer and the Approving Authority.

Ultimately, the Court quashed the notice under section 148 of the Act and the order dealing with objections, ruling in favor of the petitioner due to the non-application of mind in recording reasons for reopening and the errors in the process. The Court held that the entire proceedings were required to be set aside, emphasizing the importance of proper application of mind in such matters.

The judgment concluded by making the rule absolute with no order as to costs, providing a comprehensive analysis of the issues raised by the petitioner regarding the notice for reassessment under the Income Tax Act,1961.

---