Change of opinion and borrowed satisfaction bar reassessment where exemption on compulsory acquisition compensation was already examined.

Reassessment under section 147 was challenged where the exemption claim under section 10(37) had already been examined in scrutiny assessment and accepted under section 143(3). The text states that reopening on the same material, without fresh tangible information, and after a later view in co-owner proceedings amounted to a mere change of opinion and was not a valid basis for reassessment. It also records that reasons relying mainly on revision proceedings relating to other co-owners, without independent evaluation of the assessee's material, disclosed borrowed satisfaction. On the facts described, the compulsory acquisition compensation retained exempt character under section 10(37), section 96 of the 2013 land acquisition law, and CBDT Circular No. 36/2016.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid when the claim of exemption under section 10(37) had already been examined in the original scrutiny assessment; (ii) Whether the reopening was vitiated for want of independent application of mind and because it was founded substantially on the revision proceedings relating to other co-owners; (iii) Whether the compensation received on compulsory acquisition of land continued to qualify for exemption so as to negate the basis for alleging escapement of income.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid when the claim of exemption under section 10(37) had already been examined in the original scrutiny assessment?

Analysis: The return had been scrutinised, a specific query on exempt income had been raised under section 142(1), details had been furnished, and the Assessing Officer had framed an assessment under section 143(3) accepting the claim. The reopening was initiated on the same material after about two years, without any new tangible material, and only because a different view had later emerged in connected proceedings involving co-owners. Reopening on the selfsame material in such circumstances amounts to review rather than reassessment.

Conclusion: The reopening was invalid and hit by the principle of change of opinion.

Issue (ii): Whether the reopening was vitiated for want of independent application of mind and because it was founded substantially on the revision proceedings relating to other co-owners?

Analysis: The reasons recorded showed that the officer relied mainly on the section 263 proceedings in the cases of other co-owners and used that development to infer escapement of income in the present case. The record did not disclose an independent evaluation of the petitioner's assessment materials, the statutory framework governing exemption, or the relevance of the CBDT circular. A belief based merely on an external view, without fresh and independent reasoning, is borrowed satisfaction and cannot sustain reassessment.

Conclusion: The reopening was vitiated for lack of independent application of mind and for being based on borrowed satisfaction.

Issue (iii): Whether the compensation received on compulsory acquisition of land continued to qualify for exemption so as to negate the basis for alleging escapement of income?

Analysis: The land was acquired for public purposes and the compensation was received in that context. The Court relied on the statutory exemption under section 10(37), the wider exemption contemplated by section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and CBDT Circular No. 36/2016. On the materials available, the claim of exemption could not be treated as demonstrably false or as income escaping assessment.

Conclusion: The compensation retained exempt character on the facts, so the foundation for alleging escapement of income was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned reassessment notice and the order rejecting objections could not be sustained, and the writ petition succeeded with the reassessment proceedings set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a claim has been specifically examined in scrutiny assessment and accepted, reassessment on the same material without fresh tangible information, especially when triggered by a borrowed view from connected proceedings, is impermissible as a mere change of opinion.

---