Reopening of assessment over MAT credit claim found to be a change of opinion; reassessment quashed

Reopening of assessment questioned the validity of reassessing MAT credit where the return and audited accounts showed a MAT credit claim; the revenue raised reassessment after four years without demonstrating non-disclosure or new material facts. The court found the claim had been filed and verified, no further inquiry justified reopening, and the attempt to reopen amounted to a change of opinion; consequence: reassessment was quashed and the petitioner's appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reopening the assessment for the A.Y. 2012-13 based on the petitioner's claim of MAT credit.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Validity of Notice under Section 148
The petitioner, a limited company, filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13, which was finalized under Section 143(3) rws 144C of the Income Tax Act. Subsequently, the respondent issued a notice under section 148 of the Act dated 25.03.2019 to reopen the assessment for the same A.Y. Reasons for reopening were supplied, and objections raised by the petitioner were rejected by the respondent. The petitioner argued that the reasons for reopening were based on incorrect facts and no new tangible material was presented. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that there was a mismatch in the data regarding the MAT credit claimed by the petitioner.

Issue 2: Disclosure of Material Facts
The court observed that the MAT credit claimed by the petitioner was duly furnished and verified during the assessment process. The assessment order under section 143(3) read with Section 144C clearly showed that the MAT credit details were provided and there was no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose material facts necessary for assessment. The court noted that the reasons for reopening were factually incorrect and that the reassessment on the same issue amounted to a change of opinion, as the claim had been accepted previously without further inquiry.

Conclusion:
After considering the submissions of both parties, the court found that the notice dated 25.03.2019 was unjustified and lacked a valid basis. The court quashed and set aside the notice, allowing the petition in favor of the petitioner. It was held that there was no cost imposed on the petitioner.

---