Reopening of assessment under Section 147: disclosed primary facts do not permit reopening when assessing officer had all material facts; decision for assessee

Reopening of assessment under tax law turned on whether non disclosure justified issuance of notice. The court applied the reason to believe standard and reiterated that the assessee must fully disclose primary facts but need not predict legal inferences; drawing legal inference is the assessing officer's function. Because all material primary facts, including brought forward unabsorbed depreciation, were disclosed and considered in the original 143(3) assessment and figures were scrutinised, there was no omission to disclose and reopening under the provision was unwarranted. The result was decided for the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The legality and validity of notice dated 26th April 2011 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Judgment Summary:

Issue 1: Disclosure of Unabsorbed Depreciation and Adjustment against Income

The petitioner filed a return of income for Assessment Year 2006-2007 declaring total income as "Nil" after claiming set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation against long term capital gains and business income. The assessment order passed by respondent no.2 assessed the income at "Nil" after setting off unabsorbed depreciation against business income and capital gains. The impugned notice was issued based on a subsequent judicial pronouncement regarding the adjustment of unabsorbed depreciation against income from capital gains. The petitioner contended that there was no failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, as the unabsorbed depreciation was disclosed in the original return. The High Court held that the Assessing Officer had all primary facts before him during the original assessment under Section 143(3) and that there was no failure to disclose, thus quashing the notice.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction for Re-opening Assessment

The petitioner argued that the notice was issued beyond the four-year limit after the relevant assessment year and without any failure to disclose material facts. The respondent contended that the issue of unabsorbed depreciation and its adjustment was not scrutinized during the original assessment, justifying the re-opening. The High Court noted that the only basis for re-opening was a subsequent judicial pronouncement, and as there was no failure to disclose, the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to re-open the assessment. The Court emphasized that the duty of the assessee is to disclose primary facts, not legal inferences, and held that the petitioner had fully and truly disclosed all necessary material facts. The rule was made absolute, quashing the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act.

Conclusion:
The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the notice dated 26th April 2011 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as there was no failure to disclose material facts and the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to re-open the assessment.

---