High Court: Reopening assessment for A.Y. 2014-2015 deemed impermissible. Assessing Officer's actions constitute a mere change of opinion.

The High Court held that the reopening of the assessment for A.Y. 2014-2015 by the tax authorities was impermissible as it constituted a mere change of opinion. The Court emphasized that the Assessing Officer had already considered and accepted the explanations provided by the Petitioner during the assessment proceedings, particularly regarding loan transactions and the creditworthiness of third-party lenders. The discrepancies in the tax authority's assertions further supported the Court's decision to set aside the reopening notice and order disposing of objections, without imposing costs on the Assessing Officer.

---

---

Issues:
1. Reopening of assessment for A.Y. 2014-2015 based on alleged escaped income.
2. Challenge to reopening by the Petitioner on grounds of change of opinion and satisfactory responses during assessment proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The Petitioner, a limited liability partnership firm in real estate business, filed a return for A.Y. 2014-2015 declaring total income as 'Nil'. The return was selected for scrutiny under CASS, leading to a series of notices and responses exchanged between the Petitioner and the tax authorities. Assessment for the year was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, after considering responses to notices issued under Section 133(6) of the Act to various parties regarding loan transactions. Subsequently, a notice dated 31st March, 2021 alleged that the Petitioner's income for the year had escaped assessment due to unexplained loans received. The Petitioner objected to the reopening, citing detailed responses provided during assessment proceedings and the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer with the explanations offered.

2. The High Court analyzed the grounds for reopening the assessment and the Petitioner's objections. It noted that the reasons for reopening were based on the same issues raised and addressed during the assessment proceedings, including queries on loan transactions and responses from third-party lenders. The Court found that the Assessing Officer had accepted the Petitioner's explanations and was satisfied with the creditworthiness of the lenders. Emphasizing that once queries are raised and answered, the Assessing Officer is deemed to have considered the issue, the Court held that the reopening was merely a change of opinion and not permissible. The Court also highlighted discrepancies in the tax authority's statements regarding the creditworthiness of the lenders, noting that the confirmation received during assessment proceedings contradicted the later assertion of unexplained loans. Consequently, the Court set aside the notice for reopening and the order disposing of the objections.

3. The Court, in its final observations, pointed out inaccuracies in the tax authority's affidavit regarding the creditworthiness of the lenders and the genuineness of the transactions. It noted that the confirmation obtained under Section 133(6) of the Act during assessment proceedings contradicted the assertion of unexplained loans in the later stages. The Court refrained from initiating perjury proceedings against the officer filing the incorrect affidavit. Ultimately, the Court disposed of the petition, refraining from imposing costs on the Assessing Officer at the request of the Respondent's counsel.

This detailed analysis of the judgment outlines the sequence of events, the legal arguments presented, and the Court's reasoning in addressing the issues raised by the Petitioner regarding the reopening of the assessment for A.Y. 2014-2015.

---