TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Income Tax Notice Quashed: Court Rules Reopening Based on Change of Opinion Lacked Jurisdiction for A.Y. 2015-16.</h1> <h3>Rushil Decor Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2 (4)</h3> Rushil Decor Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2 (4) - [2025] 482 ITR 202 (Guj) Issues:Challenge to notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2015-16 beyond the prescribed period.Analysis:The petitioner filed a return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 and claimed TDS credit. The assessment order was passed under Section 143 (3) of the Act. During assessment proceedings, unclaimed TDS was found, and the petitioner provided explanations regarding the difference in TDS credit. The impugned notice under Section 148 was issued after four years, alleging that the petitioner understated income due to unclaimed TDS. Reasons for re-opening were provided, indicating the alleged income escapement. The court noted that the Assessing Officer's reason to believe income escapement was based on the same material already disclosed during regular assessment. It was concluded that the notice was a mere change of opinion and lacked jurisdiction, thus quashing the notice.This judgment revolves around the challenge to a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2015-16 beyond the prescribed period. The petitioner had filed returns and undergone scrutiny assessment, addressing queries regarding unclaimed TDS during the process. The reasons for re-opening cited the alleged understatement of income due to unclaimed TDS, leading to the issuance of the impugned notice. However, the court found that the Assessing Officer's belief of income escapement was based on information already disclosed during the regular assessment, deeming the notice a mere change of opinion without jurisdiction. Consequently, the court quashed the notice, emphasizing the lack of failure on the petitioner's part to fully disclose material facts during the initial assessment.
TaxTMI 