Reopening based on Section 43B claims fails where existing records were ignored and change of opinion was impermissible.

Reopening under Section 148 based on alleged unpaid expenses under Section 43B was held unsustainable where the return, audit reports and supporting material were already on record. The Court found that the assessee had undergone scrutiny assessment, the impugned liabilities were shown as paid, reversed, transferred to creditors or adjusted through input tax credit, and the Assessing Officer did not meaningfully deal with the reply or existing material. Reopening founded mainly on Insight Portal information, without proper application of mind, was treated as an impermissible change of opinion. The notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the order under Section 148A(d) could be sustained when the alleged escapement was based on claimed unpaid expenses under Section 43B, despite the return, audit report and supporting material already on record.

Analysis: The petitioner had undergone regular scrutiny assessment and the record, including the audit reports, showed that the impugned liabilities were either already paid in the subsequent period, reversed, transferred to creditors, or adjusted through input tax credit. The material placed before the Assessing Officer was not effectively dealt with, and the reopening was founded mainly on information from the Insight Portal without proper consideration of the reply and existing record. On those facts, the reopening reflected non-application of mind and amounted to an impermissible change of opinion.

Conclusion: The notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) were quashed and set aside, in favour of the assessee.

---