ITAT quashes reassessment notice under section 148 issued beyond four-year limitation period for change of opinion

ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal, quashing the reassessment notice issued under section 148 beyond the four-year limitation period. The tribunal held that the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction under section 147/148 as the alleged escapement of income was based on documents already available during the original assessment under section 153A. The AO failed to establish that income escaped due to the assessee's failure to fully disclose material facts. The tribunal ruled this was merely a change of opinion by the AO, which cannot justify reopening beyond the limitation period, making the reassessment notice legally invalid.

---

---

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in these appeals pertain primarily to the validity of reopening assessments under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly in the context of prior assessments completed under sections 153A and 153C following search and seizure operations. The issues include whether the reopening was justified on the basis of new material or merely a change of opinion, whether the conditions of the first proviso to section 147 were satisfied, and the legitimacy of additions made under section 68 of the Act on account of alleged accommodation entries.

The Tribunal examined the following key issues:

• Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) had jurisdiction to reopen the completed assessments under section 147/148 of the Act after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year.
• Whether the reopening was based on fresh material or was merely a change of opinion on the same material already considered during the original assessments under sections 153A/153C.
• Whether the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, thereby justifying the lifting of the four-year limitation under the first proviso to section 147.
• The validity of additions made under section 68 of the Act on account of share capital and share premium received from certain companies alleged to be shell companies providing accommodation entries.

Issue-wise detailed analysis:

Jurisdiction to Reopen Assessment under Section 147/148:

The legal framework governing reopening of assessments under section 147 requires the AO to have a "reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The first proviso to section 147 imposes a four-year limitation period for reopening assessments where an assessment has already been completed under section 143(3), unless there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

Precedents, including the Supreme Court rulings in CIT vs Kelvinator India and Andhra Bank Ltd. vs CIT, establish that reopening cannot be based on mere change of opinion and that fresh material must be brought on record to justify reopening beyond the limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the AO's reasons for reopening were based solely on the reassessment of the same loose papers (LP-16) seized during the search and already subject to detailed inquiry in the original assessment under section 153A. The AO did not point to any new material discovered post-assessment.

The Tribunal observed that the AO's action amounted to a review of the original decision rather than discovery of new facts, which is impermissible. The Tribunal emphasized that the contents of the loose papers were already in possession of the AO and had been examined during the original assessment, including issuance of questionnaires and receipt of replies from the assessee.

Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the reopening was based on a change of opinion, which is not a valid ground for reopening under section 147. The notice under section 148 was therefore without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

Fulfillment of Conditions under the First Proviso to Section 147:

The first proviso to section 147 requires that, for reopening beyond four years, there must be failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. The AO alleged such failure but did not substantiate the claim with any new material or evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the loose paper forming the basis of the alleged escapement was already before the AO and had been subject matter of assessment. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court decision in Gemini Leather Stores vs ITO to underscore that an assessee is not expected to advise the AO as to what inferences to draw from disclosed facts, and that mere oversight by the AO does not amount to failure of disclosure by the assessee.

Given that all primary facts were available to the AO at the time of original assessment, the Tribunal concluded that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts fully and truly. Hence, the embargo of limitation was not lifted, and the reopening notice was barred by limitation.

Validity of Additions under Section 68 on Accommodation Entries:

The AO made additions on merits under section 68 by treating share capital and share premium received from certain companies as accommodation entries. The AO relied on the financial profiles of these companies, which showed negligible profits and turnover, and on incriminating documents seized during the search operation.

However, since the reopening itself was held to be invalid, the Tribunal did not find it necessary to examine the merits of these additions. The Tribunal refrained from adjudicating on the genuineness of the share capital transactions or the characterization of the companies as shell entities.

Treatment of Competing Arguments:

The assessee's principal argument was that the reopening was a mere change of opinion on the same material already considered and that no new material had surfaced. The assessee also contended that the limitation period had expired and the conditions for reopening after four years were not met.

The Revenue contended that the AO had "reason to believe" income had escaped assessment due to omission by the assessee and that the incriminating documents supported reopening and additions.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's arguments on jurisdiction and limitation, holding that the AO's action was impermissible as it lacked fresh material and was barred by limitation. The Revenue's reliance on the incriminating documents was insufficient to justify reopening or additions in the absence of new facts.

Significant holdings include the following verbatim legal reasoning:

"It is trite that a completed assessment cannot be re-opened in exercise of power conferred under section 147 of the Act merely on the basis of 'change of opinion'."

"The so-called loose paper/document giving rise to allegation of escapement of income was admittedly before the AO and was subject matter of assessment under section 153A of the Act. We thus cannot visualize lack of any disclosure per se."

"The action of re-opening by AO thus clearly betrays mandatory jurisdictional conditions in-built for exercise of jurisdiction."

The Tribunal established the core principle that reopening assessments under section 147 beyond four years requires fresh material and failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Mere reassessment based on the same material already considered constitutes an impermissible change of opinion and invalidates the reopening.

Final determinations were:

• The notices issued under section 148 for reopening assessments were quashed for lack of jurisdiction and being barred by limitation.
• The reassessments made pursuant to such reopening were held to be non-est and bad in law.
• The appeals of the assessee were allowed without adjudicating the merits of additions under section 68.

These conclusions were applied mutatis mutandis to both appeals arising from assessments under sections 153A and 153C respectively, resulting in allowance of both appeals.

---