2025 (8) TMI 1682 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening under s.148 invalid where notice cited escapement of commodity profit but assessment added unrelated amounts after s.133(6)

DCIT, West Bengal Versus SRMB Srijan Private Limited

ITAT Kolkata (AT) held the reopening under s.148 invalid because the recorded reason concerned alleged escapement of commodity profit, yet the assessment ... Validity of reopening of assessment - AO having concrete evidence and reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment - as per AO commodity profit has not been disclosed by the assessee and thus, has escaped assessment - HELD THAT:- As a matter of fact while making the assessment the ld. AO did not make any addition with regard to commodity profit which was already disclosed by the assessee in the return filed. AO made the addition in respect of other incomes which were not subject matter of the reasons recorded paid by the assessee company to Pushkar Trading and Holding Pvt. Ltd. to which notice u/s 133(6) of the Act was issued and also replied by the said company vide reply dated 05.10.2018. AO finally held that the entire amount is an unexplained investment and added to the income of the assessee. In our view, the reopening as envisaged in the reason recorded u/s 148(2) of the Act i.e. the escapement of commodity was not made in the assessment order. Therefore, no other additions would be made as the very foundation of the reopening is gone. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2010 (4) TMI 431 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. [2011 (6) TMI 4 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Major Deepak Mehta [2011 (11) TMI 462 - CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether initiation of proceedings under section 147 read with section 148 of the Income-tax Act is valid where the item alleged to have escaped assessment was disclosed in the return and accepted by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment. 2. Whether reopening the assessment on a ground recorded in the reasons under section 148(2) permits the Assessing Officer to make additions on unrelated items not specified in those reasons. 3. Whether a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer, after the expiry of the statutory period, can justify reopening an assessment under section 147/148. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of reopening where alleged escaped income was disclosed and accepted in original assessment Legal framework: Reopening of assessment is governed by sections 147 and 148; section 149(1) (as interpreted) precludes reopening where the facts were fully and truly disclosed in the return and accepted in the original assessment, particularly beyond the standard limitation period. Precedent treatment: The Court relied on established jurisprudence holding that reassessment cannot be initiated where the item relied upon was placed on record in the return and was accepted by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment; such decisions are followed by the Tribunal in the instant matter. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the reasons recorded for reopening and the original assessment file. The item alleged to have escaped assessment (commodity profit of specified amount) was shown as business income in the return and the Assessing Officer had, in reasons recorded, acknowledged its disclosure and further accepted it in the subsequent assessment order passed under section 143(3). Given that the very quantum relied upon in the reasons was already disclosed and accepted, the statutory condition for reopening under section 147-namely existence of undisclosed income-was not satisfied. The Tribunal held that reopening on that premise was therefore legally untenable. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where an item was fully disclosed in the return and accepted in the original assessment, initiation of proceedings under sections 147/148 on the ground that that item escaped assessment is invalid. Obiter - None significant on this point beyond the applied principle. Conclusions: The reopening was invalid insofar as it purported to recover the previously disclosed and accepted commodity profit; proceeding insofar as it sought to reassess that specific item is bad in law and must be quashed. Issue 2: Permissibility of making additions on matters not specified in the reasons for reopening Legal framework: Sections 147/148 require that the reasons recorded specify the escapement of income; reassessment must be confined to the matter forming the foundation of reopening. The principle against expanding reassessment beyond recorded reasons follows from the limits placed by the statute on scope of reassessment. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal applied principles from authoritative decisions which caution against widening reassessment scope beyond the reasoned foundation; such precedents are followed to hold the reassessment must be based on the very foundation recorded in reasons. Interpretation and reasoning: In the instant case, the Assessing Officer, although recording reasons about one item (commodity profit allegedly undisclosed), made additions in respect of a different transaction (an alleged unexplained investment of Rs.50 lakhs paid to a third party) which was not the subject-matter of the reasons. The Tribunal found that because the identified foundation for reopening (the commodity profit) was not tenable, any other additions made in the reassessment which were not part of the reasons recorded could not stand. The Tribunal emphasized that if the foundation of reopening collapses, consequential actions in that reopened assessment lack legitimacy. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Additions or penalties in reassessment proceedings that are not connected to or founded upon the reasons recorded for reopening are unsustainable where the recorded reasons do not justify reopening. Obiter - Observations on procedural steps (e.g., notices under section 133(6) being issued and replied to) are explanatory and not determinative of the legal question. Conclusions: Additions and penalties made in the reassessment proceedings which were not founded on the reasons recorded for reopening are invalid where the reason for reopening itself is held bad in law. Issue 3: Change of opinion as a ground for reopening after statutory period Legal framework: The law distinguishes between discovery of new material/evidence and mere change of opinion; the latter does not justify reopening assessments beyond the statutory limitation unless there is non-disclosure or misrepresentation as contemplated by the statute. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal followed authoritative pronouncements establishing that mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer cannot be the basis for reassessment under section 147/148 where information was already disclosed and assessed. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's subsequent view that a larger part of the disclosed amount should have been disallowed amounted to a change of opinion rather than discovery of omission or suppression. Because the commodity profit was disclosed and the AO had accepted it in original proceedings, the later assertion did not constitute new information warranting reopening. Therefore, proceeding under section 147 based on that change of opinion was legally impermissible. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Reopening cannot be based on mere change of opinion about matters already disclosed and accepted in the original assessment; such action is invalid. Obiter - Remarks on the procedural chronology are ancillary. Conclusions: The reassessment founded on a change of opinion was impermissible; consequently, consequential penalties and additions predicated on that reassessment must be annulled. Cross-reference and Overall Conclusion The Tribunal, applying the foregoing principles and following established jurisprudence, concluded that (i) the reopening under sections 147/148 was invalid insofar as it sought to reassess an item already disclosed and accepted; (ii) consequential additions and penalties not rooted in the recorded reasons are unsustainable; and (iii) a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer cannot validate reassessment beyond the statutory constraints. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the appellate authority's deletion of the challenged additions and penalties.