High Court quashes Income Tax Act notice, emphasizes rational grounds for assessment reopening.

The High Court quashed the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and the order rejecting the petitioner's objections, declaring them as without jurisdiction and barred by limitation. The court found the reasons for reopening the assessment to be a mere change of opinion and emphasized the importance of rational grounds for reopening. The non-disclosure of correspondence with the Revenue Audit Department was deemed crucial, and the Assessing Officer's reliance on audit objections was found impermissible. The ruling favored the petitioner, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of the notice dated 30/03/2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Rejection of objections to the aforementioned notice by the order dated 04/03/2022.
3. Jurisdictional issues and applicability of Section 147 and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
4. Alleged change of opinion by the Assessing Officer.
5. Non-disclosure of correspondence with the Revenue Audit Department.

Summary:

Legality and Validity of Notice under Section 148:
The petitioner challenged the notice dated 30/03/2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging that the reasons for reopening the assessment for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 were based on a change of opinion, which is impermissible under the proviso to Section 147 of the Act. The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer had previously accepted the valuation method for rights shares in the assessment order dated 19/12/2017, and there were no new grounds to reopen the assessment.

Rejection of Objections:
The petitioner contended that the order dated 04/03/2022 rejecting their objections was illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner had requested copies of all correspondence with the Revenue Audit Department, which were not furnished, thereby denying them the opportunity to address the basis for reopening the assessment.

Jurisdictional Issues and Applicability of Sections 147 and 148:
The petitioner argued that the reopening of the assessment beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year was barred by limitation, as there was no failure on their part to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. The High Court held that the notice under Section 148 suffered from non-application of mind and was based on the same material previously scrutinized and accepted by the Assessing Officer, thus constituting a change of opinion.

Change of Opinion:
The High Court observed that the reasons for reopening the assessment were essentially a re-evaluation of the same facts and materials already considered in the original assessment. The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in ITO Vrs. Lakhmani Mewal Das, emphasizing that reasons for reopening must have a rational connection and should not be based on vague or indefinite grounds.

Non-Disclosure of Correspondence with Revenue Audit Department:
The High Court noted that the respondents failed to produce the correspondence with the Revenue Audit Department, which was crucial for the petitioner to contest the reopening notice. The court found that the Assessing Officer did not independently apply his mind and relied on audit objections, which is not permissible.

Conclusion:
The High Court quashed the notice dated 30/03/2021 under Section 148 and the order dated 04/03/2022 rejecting the petitioner's objections, declaring them as without jurisdiction and barred by limitation. The rule was made absolute in favor of the petitioner, with no costs awarded.

---