Court Quashes Assessment Reopening, Deems Change of Opinion

The court concluded that the jurisdictional condition to reopen the assessment was not met, and the exercise was deemed a change of opinion on the same material. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the notice dated 18th March 2021 and the order dated 3rd September 2021 were quashed and set aside, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Rejection of objections to the proposed reopening of assessment.
3. Fulfillment of jurisdictional conditions for reopening the assessment.
4. Alleged failure to make a true and full disclosure by the petitioner.
5. Alleged change of opinion by the Assessing Officer.
6. Independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Notice Issued Under Section 148:
The petitioner challenged the notice dated 18th March 2021 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, asserting that the notice was based on an alleged reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.

2. Rejection of Objections to the Proposed Reopening:
The petitioner’s objections to the reopening of the assessment were rejected by the respondent on 3rd September 2021. The objections were based on the grounds that the jurisdictional conditions for reopening the assessment were not fulfilled and that there was no failure to make a true and full disclosure of material facts.

3. Fulfillment of Jurisdictional Conditions for Reopening the Assessment:
The petitioner argued that the jurisdictional condition to reopen the assessment was not fulfilled as no income had escaped assessment due to any failure on the part of the petitioner to make a true and full disclosure of material facts. The assessment was proposed to be reopened beyond four years from the end of the assessment year 2013-14, and in the absence of satisfaction on the part of the Assessing Officer regarding the failure to make such full and true disclosure, the assumption of jurisdiction was legally unsustainable.

4. Alleged Failure to Make a True and Full Disclosure:
The respondents contended that the income escaped assessment solely due to the petitioner’s failure to make a full and true disclosure of material facts, particularly regarding the identity and creditworthiness of the lender and the genuineness of the transaction. The respondents argued that the lack of creditworthiness and the non-genuine nature of the loan transaction could only be ascertained post-search action under section 132 of the Act.

5. Alleged Change of Opinion by the Assessing Officer:
The petitioner asserted that the issue of creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transaction was already considered during the original assessment, and thus, the reopening of the assessment was barred as it fell within the realm of a change of opinion, which is legally impermissible. The court noted that the petitioner had disclosed the unsecured loan transaction and furnished all supporting documents during the original assessment. The court found that the Assessing Officer had considered these issues during the original assessment, and thus, the reopening of the assessment was indeed an outcome of a change of opinion.

6. Independent Application of Mind by the Assessing Officer:
The petitioner argued that there was no independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer as the reopening was based merely on information received from the Investigation Wing of the department. The court observed that the Assessing Officer had solicited information and documents regarding the unsecured loans during the original assessment and had considered the issues of genuineness and creditworthiness at that time.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the jurisdictional condition to reopen the assessment was not made out, and the exercise fell within the realm of a change of opinion with regard to the same material. Therefore, the petition was allowed, and the impugned notice dated 18th March 2021 and the impugned order dated 3rd September 2021 were quashed and set aside. No costs were awarded.

---