Transfer pricing assessment reopening invalid when based on change of opinion rather than undisclosed material facts

The Bombay HC held that reopening of assessment for TP adjustment was invalid as it was based on change of opinion rather than failure to disclose material facts. The assessee had submitted a transfer pricing study which was accepted by the TPO, and the AO computed income based on the ALP determined by the TPO. The court emphasized that an assessee's duty extends only to full and truthful disclosure of primary facts, not drawing inferences from those facts. Since there was no allegation that the assessee was aware of third-party import prices or failed to disclose material facts, and queries during assessment proceedings were addressed, the reopening was unjustified.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court were:

• Whether the reopening of the assessment for Assessment Year (AY) 2007-08 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was valid, given that the notice was issued more than four years after the end of the relevant assessment year and an assessment under Section 143(3) had already been completed.
• Whether the proviso to Section 147 of the Act, which restricts reopening beyond four years unless there is a failure to truly and fully disclose material facts, was satisfied in this case.
• Whether the petitioner failed to disclose primary facts material to the computation of the arm's length price (ALP) in respect of international transactions with associate enterprises (AEs), thereby justifying reopening.
• Whether reliance on third-party prices, which the petitioner allegedly was not aware of, could constitute a valid reason to believe income had escaped assessment.
• The scope of the duty of an assessee regarding disclosure of facts and whether the petitioner was obligated to disclose inferences or facts not known to it.
• The validity of reopening based on a "change of opinion" by the Assessing Officer (AO) and whether such change of opinion can constitute a reason to believe income has escaped assessment.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Validity of Reopening Assessment under Section 148 beyond Four Years and Application of Proviso to Section 147

The reopening notice under Section 148 was issued on 11th November 2013, more than four years after the end of AY 2007-08. The proviso to Section 147 restricts reopening beyond four years unless there is a failure to truly and fully disclose material facts necessary for assessment. The Court examined whether this condition was met.

The legal framework mandates that reopening beyond four years requires the AO to have a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts fully and truly. The Court referred to precedents which emphasize that the assessee must disclose all primary facts, but is not obliged to disclose inferences or facts not known to it.

The Court found that the reopening was based on information alleging that the petitioner imported raw materials from its AEs at prices far exceeding the ALP, citing third-party prices as benchmarks. However, there was no allegation or evidence that the petitioner was aware of these third-party prices or failed to disclose any primary facts related to these transactions.

Duty to Disclose Primary Facts vs. Inferences

Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Calcutta Discount Company Limited v. ITO, the Court reiterated that the assessee's duty is limited to full and truthful disclosure of primary facts. The AO must draw inferences independently. The Court also cited the Division Bench ruling in N.D. Bhatt Inspecting ACIT v. I.B.M. World Trade Corporation, which held that an assessee cannot be expected to disclose inferences or facts not known to it.

In this case, the petitioner had submitted a transfer pricing study prepared by a reputed firm, which was accepted by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA(3). The AO's assessment under Section 143(3) was based on this acceptance. The reopening notice did not demonstrate any failure by the petitioner to disclose primary facts; rather, it was predicated on a "change of opinion" by the AO regarding the correctness of the transfer pricing study.

Reliance on Third-Party Prices Not Known to Petitioner

The reopening was premised on information that the petitioner paid prices to its AEs far exceeding third-party prices for the same raw materials. However, the Court noted that the petitioner was not shown to be aware of these third-party prices at the relevant time. The reasons recorded for reopening did not explain how the petitioner could have disclosed facts it was unaware of. Therefore, the reopening could not be justified on this basis.

Reopening Based on "Change of Opinion"

The Court emphasized that a mere change of opinion by the AO does not constitute a valid reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The reopening notice and reasons recorded indicated that the AO's action was based on a reassessment of the transfer pricing methodology and prices, which had already been accepted in earlier proceedings.

The Court held that such change of opinion cannot justify reopening under Section 148, especially where the proviso to Section 147 applies.

Application of Law to Facts and Treatment of Competing Arguments

The petitioner argued that it had fully disclosed all primary facts related to international transactions with AEs, submitted transfer pricing documentation, and cooperated with the TPO and AO. The AO's reliance on subsequent years' transfer pricing studies and third-party prices unknown to the petitioner was insufficient to establish failure to disclose.

The respondents contended that new material had come to light indicating overpayment to AEs and income escaping assessment. The Court found this argument unpersuasive in the absence of any failure by the petitioner to disclose facts known to it.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held:

"The duty of an assessee does not extend beyond the full and truthful disclosure of all primary facts. Once all the primary facts are before the Assessing Authority, it requires no further assistance by way of disclosure. It is for the AO to decide what inferences of facts can reasonably be drawn and what legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn."

"There is nothing to indicate that there was any failure on the part of assessee to truly and fully disclose any material fact. The reopening of assessment by the impugned notice is merely on the basis of 'change of opinion' and that 'change of opinion' does not constitute justification and/or reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment."

The Court concluded that the reopening notice issued under Section 148 was invalid as the conditions under the proviso to Section 147 were not satisfied. The petitioner had fully disclosed primary facts, and the AO's action was based on a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible.

The writ of certiorari quashing the reopening notice and the order rejecting objections was made absolute, and the petition was disposed of without costs.

---