Reopening assessment under Section 147 based on change of opinion held impermissible when material facts disclosed

HC held that reopening of assessment under Section 147 based on change of opinion is impermissible. The assessing officer had previously examined the assessee's bad debt claims under Sections 36(1)(vii), 36(1)(viia), and 36(1)(viii) during original assessment proceedings, issuing notices and questionnaires which were duly answered. The assessee had disclosed all material facts. The reason to believe income escaped assessment was merely based on giving effect to CIT(A)'s order, constituting only a change of opinion rather than valid grounds for reopening. The petition was decided in favor of the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to the deduction claims under Section 36(1)(vii), Section 36(1)(viia), and Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary concern is the reassessment of the petitioner's income due to alleged discrepancies in the deductions claimed in the return of income for Assessment Year 2013-14.

Deduction under Section 36(1)(vii):
The petitioner initially declared a total income of Rs. 85,82,23,14,680/- for the relevant assessment year, which was later revised to Rs. 85,70,52,53,270/-. The respondent raised queries regarding deductions for bad debts claimed under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The petitioner submitted detailed explanations, working of deductions, and revised statements, supported by relevant circulars of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). The assessment order passed by Respondent No. 1 considered these submissions and made adjustments accordingly.

Deduction under Section 36(1)(viia):
The petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) was also scrutinized during the assessment proceedings. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed an order giving effect to CIT(A)'s decision, allowing a specific deduction amount under this section. However, the respondent later alleged an excess deduction under this provision, leading to the reassessment of the petitioner's income.

Deduction under Section 36(1)(viii):
The assessment order discussed the claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) concerning the business income computed under the head 'Profits and Gains of Business and Profession.' The respondent noted a specific amount appropriated to the Special Reserve Account and allowed a deduction up to a certain limit. Subsequently, the petitioner's income was reassessed, and discrepancies were identified in the deductions allowed under this section.

Reopening of Assessment:
The petitioner was served with a notice under Section 148 of the Act, stating that income had escaped assessment. Reasons for reopening the assessment included alleged excess provisions for bad debts, deductions under Section 36(1)(viii), and Section 36(1)(viia). The petitioner challenged the notice, arguing that there was no failure on their part to disclose material facts necessary for assessment within the prescribed time limit.

Court's Decision:
The High Court considered the reasons for reopening the assessment and found that it could not be sustained. The Court emphasized that the reassessment was based on a change of opinion rather than new material facts, which is impermissible in law. The Court held that the reasons provided did not establish that there was a failure on the petitioner's part to disclose all relevant information. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the notice and order issued by the respondent were quashed and set aside.

---