Reopening assessment under Section 147 based on audit objections invalid when issues already considered during original proceedings

The Bombay HC held that reopening of assessment under Section 147 based on audit objections was invalid. The court found that both issues raised in the reason to believe - employee benefit expenses for ESOP and income from arbitrage business - were already considered during original assessment proceedings through queries raised by the AO. Since the assessee had disclosed these items in audited accounts filed with the return and responded to AO's queries, the reopening constituted merely a change of opinion, which is impermissible. The court emphasized that AO must independently determine reasons to believe income escaped assessment, not rely on audit objections. Petition allowed in favour of assessee.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the validity of a notice dated 30th March 2021 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2013-2014, the rejection of objections to reopening in an order dated 10th February 2022, and a notice dated 21st February 2022 issued under Section 142(1) of the Act.

Details of the Judgment:

1. The petitioner challenged the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2013-2014, along with an order rejecting objections to reopening and a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act.

2. The petitioner filed a return of income for AY 2013-14, which was subsequently revised. The case was selected under the Computer Assisted Scrutiny Scheme, and an assessment order was passed. Later, a notice under Section 148 was issued alleging income escapement due to ESOP expenses and losses from arbitrage business.

3. The proviso to Section 147 of the Act applies as over four years had passed since the assessment year, requiring a failure to disclose necessary material facts for reopening.

4. The reason to believe did not disclose that the mentioned items were considered during the assessment proceedings. The petitioner's responses were elaborate and considered by the Assessing Officer, leading to disallowances in the assessment order.

5. The AO cannot reopen assessment based solely on audit objections without independent evaluation. The impugned notice was quashed, and the order rejecting objections was set aside.

Separate Judgment by the Judges:
None.

---