2025 (1) TMI 1297 - HC - Income Tax

Revenue's appeal dismissed for invalid reassessment beyond four years without new material facts under section 147

The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1 Vadodara Versus M/s. IOT Anwesha Engineering And Projects Ltd.

Gujarat HC dismissed Revenue's appeal challenging CIT(A)'s order quashing reassessment u/s 147. Court held that reopening assessment beyond four years ... Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Change of opinion - failure on the part of the assessee in furnishing material facts fully and truly for the assessment - assessee has not disclosed true and correct facts regarding the payment of VAT - HELD THAT:- As per notice issued by the CIT(A), Baroda, wherein no recording of reasons of the fact of failure on the part of the appellant in submitting material facts for the purpose of making assessment truly and fully at the time of original assessment is reflecting for initiation of such re-assessment proceeding. Once, upon considering the documents, the claim of the assessee decided and accepted by not making any addition during the course of regular assessment issuing notice u/s 148 on the same issue by successor AO amongst to assumption of revisionary power which is not valid as per law. When the AO attempts to reopen an assessment on the count the opinion formed earlier by him was an incorrect opinion, the reopening is not warranted. Though the statutory power has been given in the hands of the ITO to reopen the final decision made against the Revenue in respect of the question that directly arose from the decisions in earlier proceeding, the same is required to be exercised sparingly upon due application of mind, otherwise it would result in placing an unrestricted and unguided power of review in the hands of the assessing authorities depending on their changing moods. Thus, we find that in the absence of new material facts brought on record by the Revenue reopening of assessment beyond the period of 4 years from the end of the assessment year in the present facts and circumstances of the case is found to be not sustainable in the eye of law and order of quashing the same by the CIT(A) with the same observation is found to be just and proper so as to warrant interference. Revenue's appeal is found to be devoid of any merit and hence, dismissed. Instant reopening and consequent addition sought to be made by the AO is nothing other than a mere change of opinion. Decided in favour of assessee. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment include: Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was justified in quashing the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reopening the assessment, on the grounds that no new material facts were presented by the Assessing Officer (AO) and that the assessee had fully and truly disclosed all material facts during the original assessment. Whether the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 was merely a change of opinion, given that the issue in question was neither examined by the AO during the original assessment proceedings nor was any opinion formed on it.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Justification for Quashing the Notice under Section 148 Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The reopening of assessments is governed by Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act. The legal precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of L&T Ltd. and other relevant cases emphasize that reassessment based on a mere change of opinion is invalid. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court interpreted that the preconditions for initiating proceedings under Section 147 were not met as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts fully and truly. The Tribunal found no new material facts that justified reopening the assessment. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted that the original assessment had already considered the details of duties and taxes, and the reopening was based on the same set of facts without any new evidence. Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principles established in previous judgments, concluding that the reopening was not justified as it was based on a change of opinion rather than new material facts. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department argued that the assessee failed to disclose the outstanding VAT liability, but the Tribunal found that the assessee had disclosed all necessary facts during the original assessment. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the notice under Section 148 was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion without new material facts.2. Change of Opinion in Reopening Assessment Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The principle that reopening based on a change of opinion is not permissible is well-established in the case law, including the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal held that the reopening was a mere change of opinion, as the AO had not formed any opinion on the VAT issue during the original assessment, and no new facts were presented. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the AO had all the relevant information during the original assessment and that the reopening was an attempt to review the earlier decision without any new evidence. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the legal principle that a reassessment cannot be based on a change of opinion, particularly when no new facts have emerged. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department's argument that the reassessment was justified due to nondisclosure was rejected, as the Tribunal found no evidence of such nondisclosure. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the reopening was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion rather than any new material facts.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that 'when the material facts were truly and fully discussed at the time of original assessment, initiation of proceedings to reopen on the same set of facts held to be invalid.' Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforced the principle that reassessment cannot be based on a mere change of opinion and must be supported by new material facts. Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the notice under Section 148, finding the reopening of the assessment to be unjustified and based on a change of opinion. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed as devoid of merit.