Court Nullifies Reassessment for AY 2013-14; Deems Action as Change of Opinion and Invalid Due to Lack of New Facts.

The HC quashed the notice dated 23rd March 2021 under Section 148 and the subsequent order dated 18th January 2022, which aimed to reopen the assessment for AY 2013-2014. The court held that there was no failure by the petitioner to disclose material facts during the original assessment, and the reopening was based on the same facts, constituting a change of opinion. As such, the reassessment proceedings were deemed without jurisdiction, illegal, and invalid. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Alleged failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment.
3. Change of opinion by the Assessing Officer.
4. Jurisdictional conditions for reassessment after four years.

Summary:

1. Validity of Reopening Assessment:
The petitioner challenged the notice dated 23rd March 2021 issued under Section 148 for reopening the assessment for AY 2013-2014 and the subsequent order dated 18th January 2022 disposing of the petitioner's objections. The petitioner argued that the reassessment proceedings were based on details already furnished during the original assessment, thus not satisfying the jurisdictional condition of failure to disclose primary facts.

2. Alleged Failure to Disclose Material Facts:
The petitioner had disclosed all necessary details during the original assessment, including deductions under Section 35, provision for bad and doubtful debts, and loss on sale of assets. The court noted that the details were filed and discussed with the Assessing Officer, who computed the income accordingly. The court held there was no failure to disclose material facts necessary for the assessment, thus invoking Section 147 after four years was not justified.

3. Change of Opinion:
The court observed that the reasons recorded for reopening were based on materials already filed during the original assessment. The court emphasized that a change of opinion does not constitute valid grounds for reopening an assessment. The court cited previous judgments to support that reopening based on a mere change of opinion is not permissible under the Act.

4. Jurisdictional Conditions for Reassessment:
The court reiterated that for reopening an assessment after four years, there must be a failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. The court found that the reasons for reopening did not disclose any new tangible material but were based on the same facts already examined. The court held that the reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction, illegal, and bad in law.

Conclusion:
The notice dated 23rd March 2021 under Section 148 and the order dated 18th January 2022 were quashed and set aside. The court disposed of the petition with no order as to costs.

---