2024 (7) TMI 439 - HC - Income Tax

Reassessment notice under Section 148 quashed as mere change of opinion without new tangible material

Arunbhai Maneklal Jhaveri And Sons Through Partner Rajubhai Arunbhai Jhaveri Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2 (1) (1)

The Gujarat HC quashed a reassessment notice u/s 148 for AY 2017-18, ruling that the AO's reasons for reopening were merely a change of opinion. The ... Validity of reassessment proceedings - reasons recorded for reassessment on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing, Ahmedabad - cash deposited in the bank account by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The assessee has disclosed full and true material facts before the AO during the original assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer, after considering such notice, has passed the impugned assessment order dated 26th December 2019 un/s 143 (3) of the Act accepting the return of income of the assessee. The reasons recorded by the respondent - Assessing Officer is nothing, but mere change of opinion. Learned advocate for the respondent has tried to supplement to the reasons recorded by the report of the Investigation Department at Annexure : R1 to the affidavit-in-reply, but none of the parties referred to therein are part of the reasons recorded as the reasons recorded only referred to the cash deposited in the bank account and there is no reference to any purchase made by the petitioner which are referred to in the report of the Investigation Department. Therefore, AO could not have assumed jurisdiction to issue notice for reopening upon what is recorded by him for reopening the assessment. We are of the opinion that the impugned notice for reopening of the AY 2017-18 is nothing but a change of opinion, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] - The impugned notice issued under Section 148 for reopening of the Assessment Year 2017-18 is hereby quashed and set aside. Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for reopening the assessment.2. Whether the reopening of assessment constitutes a 'change of opinion.'3. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue the notice based on information received from the Investigation Wing.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Notice Issued Under Section 148The petitioner challenged the notice dated 30th March 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, seeking to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The petitioner argued that the reopening was beyond the period of four years and was based on information from the Insight Portal and the Investigation Wing, Ahmedabad, without independent formation of belief by the Assessing Officer. The petitioner contended that all material facts were disclosed during the original assessment proceedings, and the notice was issued on borrowed satisfaction.2. Change of OpinionThe petitioner argued that the notice for reopening the assessment was nothing but a 'change of opinion.' During the original assessment, the petitioner had provided all required details, including the source of cash deposits and bank account information. The assessment order dated 26th December 2019 under Section 143(3) was passed after thorough scrutiny, where no additions were made concerning the cash deposits. The petitioner contended that the reopening was based on the same set of facts already examined, which constitutes a change of opinion and is not permissible for reopening under Section 147.3. Jurisdiction of the Assessing OfficerThe respondent argued that the notice was issued within the period of four years and was based on fresh information received from the Investigation Wing, which was not available during the original assessment. The respondent claimed that the petitioner had deposited a significant amount of cash just before the demonetization period, which required further investigation. The respondent contended that the information from the Investigation Wing revealed that the petitioner had made purchases from bogus parties, and the cash deposits were suspicious, justifying the reopening of the assessment.Court's Findings:The court analyzed the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment. It noted that the petitioner had provided detailed responses to all notices issued under Section 142(1) during the original assessment proceedings, including bank account details and sources of cash deposits. The court found that the Assessing Officer had already scrutinized these details and accepted the return of income in the original assessment order.The court held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were merely a change of opinion, as the same facts had already been examined during the original assessment. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd, which emphasized that a mere change of opinion cannot justify reopening an assessment. The court also noted that the Investigation Wing's report did not form part of the reasons recorded for reopening and could not supplement the reasons.Conclusion:The court concluded that the impugned notice for reopening the assessment was based on a change of opinion and lacked jurisdiction. The court quashed and set aside the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act dated 30th March 2021 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute.