2025 (6) TMI 1417 - HC - Income Tax

Section 148 reopening notice invalid when based on change of opinion rather than undisclosed material facts

Devaraj Ramasamy Mani Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corp, Circle-2, Coimbatore

The HC held that a reopening notice under Section 148 was invalid as it was based on mere change of opinion rather than failure to disclose material ... Reopening of assessment - basic requirement of “failure to disclose” to issue re-opening notice - HELD THAT:- From the reasons quoted above, it is quite clear that there has been no failure to disclose. It is because the reason itself says “The assessee had claimed an expenditure towards bad debts written off in his profit & loss account However it is found that this amount had also been shown as provisions in Trial Balance Hence, the Bad Debt Written off Claim is not correct.” .Therefore, the basic requirement of “failure to disclose” to issue re-opening notice itself falls to the ground. The very ground on which the notice dated 13.3.2020 under 148 of the said Act was issued to re-open the assessment was considered by the AO while originally passing the assessment order dated 24.2.2016. This itself demonstrates the fact that notice dated 13.3.2020 under Section 148 of the said Act seeking to re-open the assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 is based on mere change of opinion. Change of opinion does not constitute justification or reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Decided in favour of assessee. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court were:Whether the reopening of the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 was valid, given the proviso to Section 147 requiring failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts to justify reopening beyond four years.Whether the reason to believe for reopening, based on alleged incorrect claim of bad debts written off despite provisions being shown in the trial balance, amounted to a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.Whether the reopening notice was based on a mere change of opinion of the Assessing Officer, which is impermissible.Whether the Assessing Officer had considered the issue of bad debts and provisions during the original assessment proceedings.Whether the lower court erred in going into the merits of the case and making adverse observations against the assessee when the reopening itself was invalid.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISValidity of Reopening under Section 148 read with Proviso to Section 147The relevant legal framework is Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, which permits reopening of assessment if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. However, the proviso to Section 147 restricts reopening beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment.The Court noted that the reopening notice dated 13.3.2020 was issued more than four years after the end of the Assessment Year 2013-2014 and hence the proviso applied. The reason to believe stated that the assessee had claimed bad debts written off but had also shown the same amount as provisions in the trial balance, indicating the amount was not fully written off. The Court interpreted this reason as not indicating any failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts, but rather an issue of correctness of claim.The Court relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in a similar context, which held that reopening based on mere change of opinion or correctness of claim without failure to disclose is impermissible. Thus, the reopening was invalid.Consideration of Issue during Original Assessment ProceedingsThe Assessing Officer had issued a notice under Section 142(1) during the original assessment proceedings calling for detailed accounts including profit and loss account, balance sheet, and schedules. The assessee responded with detailed information, including the balance sheet showing provisions and trial balance showing bad debts written off.The assessment order dated 24.2.2016 recorded that the Assessing Officer had considered the details and discussed the case with the authorized representative. This demonstrated that the issue of bad debts and provisions was considered during the original assessment.Therefore, the reopening notice was based on a ground already considered and decided upon, amounting to a mere change of opinion, which is not a valid reason for reopening.Change of Opinion DoctrineThe Court extensively quoted a precedent from the Bombay High Court which clarified that reopening an assessment on grounds already considered during original proceedings, even if not explicitly mentioned in the assessment order, is a mere change of opinion and does not justify reopening.The Court emphasized that the Assessing Officer's consideration of objections during assessment proceedings suffices to preclude reopening on the same grounds later.Merits of the Case and Adverse Observations by the Lower CourtSince the reopening notice itself was held invalid, the Court found that the learned Single Judge erred in going into the merits and making observations that the assessee misled the department. The Court held that such merits-based scrutiny was impermissible when the foundation of reopening was unsustainable.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'From the reasons quoted above, it is quite clear that there has been no failure to disclose. It is because the reason itself says 'The assessee had claimed an expenditure of Rs. 42,42,505/- towards bad debts written off in his profit & loss account ... However it is found that this amount ... had also been shown as provisions in Trial Balance ... Hence, the Bad Debt Written off Claim is not correct.' Therefore, the basic requirement of 'failure to disclose' to issue re-opening notice itself falls to the ground.''The very ground on which the notice dated 13.3.2020 under 148 of the said Act was issued to re-open the assessment was considered by the Assessing Officer while originally passing the assessment order dated 24.2.2016. This itself demonstrates the fact that notice dated 13.3.2020 under Section 148 of the said Act seeking to re-open the assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 is based on mere change of opinion.''This change of opinion does not constitute justification or reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.''Once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and the assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query raised was a subject of consideration of the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment. It is not necessary that an assessment order should contain reference and/or discussion to disclose its satisfaction in respect of the query raised.'Core principles established include:Reopening beyond four years under Section 147 proviso requires failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts; mere disagreement or change of opinion does not suffice.Issues considered during original assessment proceedings cannot be reopened on the same grounds later.The assessment order need not explicitly record consideration of every query raised during assessment proceedings; the fact that the assessee responded and the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment suffices.Invalid reopening notices preclude merits-based inquiry or adverse findings against the assessee.Final determinations:The reopening notice under Section 148 for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 was invalid as it lacked the requisite failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.The Assessing Officer had considered the issue during original assessment, making the reopening a mere change of opinion.The impugned order reopening the assessment and making adverse observations was quashed and set aside.