Court quashes reassessment notice for A.Y. 2013-14 citing lack of new facts.

The court quashed the notice for reopening assessment for A.Y. 2013-14, emphasizing that reassessment based on a change of opinion is unwarranted when primary facts are fully disclosed. The Assessing Officer's contentions regarding the valuation of shares and claimed expenses were deemed as a mere change of opinion, as these matters were adequately explained during assessment proceedings. The court highlighted the lack of disclosure by the Assessing Officer and ruled in favor of the petitioner, disposing of the petition with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Impugning notice for reopening assessment for A.Y. 2013-14.
2. Valuation of shares and expenses claimed as cost of samples.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the notice dated 13th March, 2020, seeking to reopen the assessment for A.Y. 2013-14. The notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act, requiring the respondent to show that the petitioner failed to disclose material facts fully and truly for assessment. The court found no evidence of such failure and noted that the re-opening was based on the valuation of shares and claimed expenses.

2. The re-opening was triggered by two points: valuation of shares issued to the parent company and claimed expenses for samples under Advertisement and Business Promotion. Regarding the valuation of shares, the Assessing Officer (JAO) contended that the valuation method used by the petitioner was incorrect, resulting in an alleged escape of assessment under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. However, the court deemed this as a mere change of opinion, as the valuation was discussed during assessment proceedings and adequately explained by the petitioner.

3. On the second point of claimed expenses, the JAO argued that the expenses were in violation of circulars prohibiting such expenditures. The court observed that the petitioner had addressed this issue during assessment proceedings, providing explanations that were not considered by the Assessing Officer. The court emphasized that when primary facts are fully disclosed, reassessment based on a change of opinion is not justified.

4. Referring to legal precedents, the court reiterated that if one view is conclusively taken based on the material available, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment to take another view. Moreover, the court highlighted the lack of disclosure by the Assessing Officer regarding the material facts that were allegedly not fully disclosed by the petitioner during the assessment process.

5. Consequently, the court quashed the notice for reopening assessment, the undated order, rejection order, and reference order. The judgment emphasized that when primary facts are fully disclosed, reassessment based on a change of opinion is unwarranted. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

---