Reopening assessment after 4 years invalid when based on details already available in original assessment records

The Bombay HC held that reopening of assessment after 4 years was invalid where the AO's reasons were based on details already available in assessment records. The court found that interest income capitalization and tax provision claims were considered during original assessment proceedings, as evidenced by the AO raising queries and the assessee responding. Following Aroni Commercials Ltd., the court ruled that specific discussion in the assessment order is not required if issues were considered during proceedings. The reopening constituted merely a change of opinion rather than valid reasons to believe income escaped assessment. The petition was decided in favor of the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Alleged failure to disclose material facts fully and truly.
3. Reopening of assessment based on change of opinion.

Summary:

1. Validity of Notice under Section 148:
The petitioner challenged the notice dated 27th March 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the order disposing of objections passed on 14th January 2022. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued after more than four years from the relevant assessment year, invoking the proviso to Section 147, which applies only if there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts fully and truly.

2. Alleged Failure to Disclose Material Facts Fully and Truly:
The reasons for reopening the assessment included the incorrect accounting treatment of interest income of Rs. 5,61,89,376/-, which was netted off against interest expenses and capitalized to Work-in-Progress (WIP). The revenue authorities argued that this interest income should have been taxed under "Income from Other Sources" as per the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd vs CIT and the Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs Rajasthan Land Development Corporation. Additionally, an amount of Rs. 4,28,636/- was found inadmissible under Section 40(a) being provision for income tax but was not added in the computation of income.

3. Reopening of Assessment Based on Change of Opinion:
The court noted that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were derived from the assessment records, indicating that the issues were already considered during the original assessment proceedings. The court referred to the case of Aroni Commercials Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, stating that once a query is raised and replied to during assessment proceedings, it follows that the query was considered by the Assessing Officer (AO). The court concluded that the reopening was merely based on a change of opinion, which does not justify the reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.

Conclusion:
The court ruled that there was no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose all material facts fully and truly. The reopening of the assessment was based on a change of opinion, which is not a valid ground for issuing a notice under Section 148. Consequently, the court quashed the notice dated 27th March 2021 and the order disposing of objections dated 14th January 2022. The petition was disposed of with Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

---