TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
AI-powered research trained on the authentic TaxTMI database.
Launch AI Search →Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Change of opinion bars reassessment where reopening relies on material already examined in original scrutiny assessment.</h1> Reassessment under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act were invalid where the reopening was founded on material already ... Reassessment after scrutiny assessment - Change of opinion - Power to reassess v/s review - live link or nexus between the material before the Assessing Officer and the belief formed regarding escapement of income HELD THAT: - The Court found from the assessee's reply in the original assessment proceedings that the very transaction now relied upon for reopening had already been specifically called for and explained, along with the supporting tax audit report, computation and financial statements. Since the material relied upon in the order under Section 148A(d) had already been considered in the original assessment, the reopening amounted only to a change of opinion. AO has no power to review the earlier assessment and cannot reopen merely to take a fresh look at documents already produced and examined. Applying the settled principle that reassessment cannot be used as a substitute for review, the Court held the impugned action to be without authority. [Paras 8, 9] Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed. The Court held that the reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2016-17 were founded on a mere change of opinion on material already examined in the original scrutiny assessment, and accordingly quashed the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148. Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were valid when the material forming the basis of reopening had already been examined in the original scrutiny assessment and the reopening amounted to a mere change of opinion.Analysis: The return for the relevant assessment year had earlier been scrutinised under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 after the assessee had furnished the relevant details, including material concerning the transaction later relied upon for reopening. The reasons recorded for reopening were founded on the same material already considered in the original assessment. Reassessment cannot be used as a power of review, and reopening is impermissible where it is based only on a reappraisal of already examined material. The concept of change of opinion operates as an in-built safeguard against arbitrary exercise of the power to reopen completed assessments.Conclusion: The reassessment order and notice were invalid and were quashed; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the reopening proceedings were set aside, bringing the matter to a final end in favour of the assessee.Ratio Decidendi: Completed assessments cannot be reopened on the basis of a mere change of opinion where the very material relied upon for reopening had already been examined in the original scrutiny assessment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
