Reassessment under Section 147 set aside for apparent error: objections ignored, wrong bank details relied on, counter insufficient

The HC set aside the reassessment proceedings under Section 147, finding an error apparent on the face of the record: objections were rejected without application of mind, the order relied on a wrong bank and account number for alleged cash deposits, and the respondent impermissibly sought to rely on different material in its counter. The court held the counter cannot be used to cure defects in the reasons for reassessment. The HC permitted the respondent to initiate fresh assessment only if valid reasons or circumstances supporting reassessment are properly recorded.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging notice and order relating to reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2015-2016.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenges the notice and order related to the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2015-2016. The primary grounds of challenge include the assertion that the proceedings are a mere change of opinion and beyond the permissible four-year period for invoking Section 147. The petitioner, a partnership firm, had filed its return of income for the said assessment year, which was accepted after scrutiny under Section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, a notice under Section 148 was issued, citing substantial cash transactions in a bank account allegedly belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner denied having any such account and provided evidence to support this claim. The respondent's counter mentioned a different account holder and transactions, raising doubts about the accuracy of the reasons for reassessment. The court found errors apparent on the face of the record, noting discrepancies in the reasons furnished for reassessment and the subsequent counter filed. The court cited legal precedents emphasizing that public orders must be judged based on what is stated in the order itself. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the objection was set aside, allowing the respondent to initiate proceedings again if warranted, but emphasizing compliance with the Income Tax Act's procedures.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition without costs, allowing the petitioner to raise all available grounds in case of a re-initiation of assessment proceedings. The judgment highlights the importance of accurate and valid reasons for reassessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the need for procedural compliance and objective assessment based on the information provided during the proceedings.

---