Tax officer cannot reopen assessment without tangible material showing undisclosed facts or income

The Bombay HC quashed a reassessment notice issued u/s 147, holding that the AO lacked tangible material to justify reopening. The court found the petitioner had made full and true disclosure of material facts during original assessment. The AO failed to specify what undisclosed facts warranted reassessment and merely sought to take a different view of already disclosed information. Since there was complete disclosure and the AO accepted the transactions under claimed heads, the reopening was invalid. The petition was allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reopening the assessment.
2. Alleged failure of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment.
3. Justification for reopening the assessment based on audit objections.

Summary:

Validity of the Notice under Section 148:
The petitioner challenged the notice dated 27th March 2021 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to reopen the assessment for AY 2013-14. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued without fulfilling the jurisdictional preconditions, as the belief formed by the Assessing Officer (AO) was based on an audit objection without an objective criterion. The court noted that the reasons for reopening were based on information available during the original assessment proceedings, indicating no failure on the petitioner's part to disclose necessary information.

Alleged Failure to Disclose Material Facts:
The petitioner had provided all required documents and details during the original assessment proceedings, including responses to notices under Section 142(1) of the Act. The court emphasized that the assessment for AY 2013-14 was sought to be reopened beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. According to the proviso to Section 147 of the Act, there must be a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for that year. The court found no such failure on the part of the petitioner.

Justification for Reopening Based on Audit Objections:
The Department relied heavily on audit objections received from its revenue department to justify reopening the assessment. However, the court observed that the AO had sought explanations from the petitioner in response to the audit queries and had found the explanations satisfactory. The court cited the case of South Yarra Holdings v. Income Tax Officer, which held that reopening an assessment must be based on the AO's own satisfaction and not at the dictate of another authority. The court concluded that there was no tangible material with the AO to justify the reopening of the assessment.

Conclusion:
The court held that the petitioner had fully and truly disclosed all material facts and that the AO had no new tangible material to justify the reopening of the assessment. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 27th March 2021 and the order dated 21st December 2021 were set aside. The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs.

---