Court reviews Income Tax Act sections, remits matter for reassessment validity determination.

Polaris Financial Technology Limited, now known as Virtusa Consulting Services Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Corporate Circle 5-2, Chennai, The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 5-2, Chennai

Polaris Financial Technology Limited, now known as Virtusa Consulting Services Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Corporate ... Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdictional validity of reassessment proceedings under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. The distinction between reassessment and change of opinion.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements for reassessment.
4. Full and true disclosure by the appellant in the original assessment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdictional Validity of Reassessment Proceedings:
The appellant challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arguing that the assumption of jurisdiction was invalid. The court noted that the power to reassess is under Section 147, while Section 148 prescribes the procedure for initiating reassessment. The learned Single Judge's interpretation that Section 148 operates independently of Section 147 was found to be a misconception. The judgment emphasized that Sections 147 to 153 must be read harmoniously as an integrated code, and any reassessment lacking jurisdiction is a nullity.

2. Distinction Between Reassessment and Change of Opinion:
The appellant argued that the reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible. The court highlighted that the Supreme Court has consistently held that reassessment cannot be based on a change of opinion, as it would render the exercise arbitrary and illegal. The learned Single Judge's failure to address whether the reassessment was based on a change of opinion was identified as a significant oversight. The court reiterated that reassessment on the basis of a change of opinion is not justified and constitutes an illegal exercise of power.

3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements for Reassessment:
The appellant contended that the reasons for reopening the assessment were not provided within a reasonable time, referencing the Gujarat High Court judgment in Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Limited v. ACIT, which suggested a 30-day period as reasonable. The court observed that the Supreme Court's mandate for furnishing reasons for reassessment is not an empty formality but ensures that the assumption of jurisdiction is valid before proceeding with reassessment. The learned Single Judge's view that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 is standalone and not restricted by Section 147 was considered a distortion of the reassessment scheme.

4. Full and True Disclosure by the Appellant:
The appellant argued that there was full and true disclosure in the original assessment, and the reassessment proceedings were unwarranted. The court noted that the respondent did not suggest any lack of full and true disclosure in the reasons for reassessment. The learned Single Judge's suggestion that the issue of full and true disclosure was still open was deemed misplaced. The court emphasized that the reasons for reassessment must indicate new or tangible material, not merely a change of opinion, to justify the assumption of jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The court found that the learned Single Judge's order suffered from several infirmities and misconceptions, particularly in treating Section 148 as independent of Section 147 and failing to address the issue of change of opinion. The judgment concluded that the matter should be remitted back to the learned Single Judge to examine whether the assumption of jurisdiction for reassessment was valid. The writ appeal was disposed of, and no costs were awarded.