2024 (2) TMI 1520 - HC - Income Tax

Tax officer's reassessment under Section 147 quashed for alleged double deduction without proper justification or evidence

M/s. Indusind Media & Communications Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 11 (1) Mumbai.

M/s. Indusind Media & Communications Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 11 (1) Mumbai. - 2025:BHC - OS:2858 - DB ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal question in this case is whether the reopening of the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2007-08, is valid. Specifically, the issues considered include: Whether the reopening of the assessment constitutes a change of opinion, which is impermissible under the Act. Whether the reasons for reopening were recorded before the issuance of the notice under Section 148. Whether there was a double deduction of the same amount, leading to escapement of income. Whether the reopening is justified within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year when the issue was already examined during the original assessment proceedings.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Reopening as a Change of OpinionThe legal framework prohibits reopening of assessments based on a mere change of opinion. The Court examined whether the issues leading to the reopening were already considered during the original assessment proceedings. The petitioner had submitted detailed explanations regarding write-offs against the Share Premium Account, which were accepted by the assessing officer during the original assessment. The Court noted that the absence of explicit discussion in the assessment order on these issues does not imply a lack of consideration, as not all queries need to be reflected in the order.The Court concluded that reopening the case on the same material amounts to a review of the original order, which is not permissible. This conclusion is supported by the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Usha International Ltd., where it was held that reopening based on the same facts constitutes a change of opinion.2. Recording of Reasons Before Issuance of NoticeThe petitioner argued that the reasons for reopening were not recorded before the issuance of the notice, rendering the proceedings void. The Court observed that the respondent failed to provide the date when the reasons were recorded, despite specific objections raised by the petitioner. This lack of rebuttal led the Court to infer that the reasons were not recorded prior to the notice, supporting the petitioner's claim that the proceedings are ab initio void.3. Alleged Double DeductionThe Court evaluated the claim of double deduction, which formed the basis for the reopening. The petitioner had argued that there was no double deduction, as the amounts were not debited to the profit and loss account but adjusted against the Share Premium Account. The Court found no evidence of double deduction in the petitioner's financial statements and noted the respondent's failure to rebut the petitioner's objection regarding this issue. Consequently, the Court determined that the reopening based on alleged double deduction was unjustified.4. Justification for Reopening Within Four YearsThe legal framework allows reopening within four years if there is a valid reason. However, the Court reiterated that reopening is not justified if the issue was examined during the original assessment proceedings. The Court referenced Aroni Commercials Limited, where it was held that reopening within four years is impermissible if it constitutes a change of opinion. The Court found that the petitioner's submissions during the original assessment addressed the issues in question, and the assessing officer's acceptance of these submissions precludes reopening on the same grounds.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 148 was invalid for several reasons: 'The fact that the query was raised, reply filed and accepted by not making any addition/disallowance in the assessment order clearly shows that the officer was satisfied with the replies.' The Court emphasized that reopening based on the same material constitutes a change of opinion, which is not permissible. The Court highlighted the absence of evidence for double deduction and noted the lack of rebuttal from the respondent as indicative of acceptance of the petitioner's position. The Court concluded that the reopening notice was void due to the lack of recorded reasons prior to its issuance.Based on these findings, the Court quashed the notice under Section 148, ruling it invalid and setting aside the reassessment proceedings. The petition was disposed of with the rule made absolute in favor of the petitioner.