TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 2012
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther hand, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Mehul Shah, defended the impugned order by contending that the necessary details were called for by the Ld. Assessing Officer before framing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. Our attention was invited to various pages of the paper book including page-15 & 17 by explaining that due enquiries were made by the Ld. Assessing Officer and accepted the returned income. It was pleaded that there was no escapement of income and it is purely a change of opinion. The crux of the argument is in support of the impugned order. Reliance was placed upon the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Amitabh Bachhan (2012) 349 ITR 76 (Bom.), Aroni Commercials Ltd. vs DCIT (2014) 362 ITR 403 (Bom.) and CIT vs Kelvintor India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (Supreme Court). 2.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the light of the arguments advanced from both sides, now question arises whether there was a "change of opinion" by the Assessing Officer and the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 after a period of four years. Before adverting further, we are expected to a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om other sources of Rs. 5,158/-. The total income of Rs. 63,40,198/- is claimed as exempt income under various sections of the IT Act. 4. After verification of the datas made available and after verification of the details filed by the assessee, the assessment is finalized and the returned income is accepted as such." 2.3. From the above, it is abundantly clear that the Ld. Assessing Officer framed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act after verification of the details filed by the assessee accepting the returned income. In the light of our aforesaid observation, since, we have observed that an opinion was formed by the Assessing Officer that too after due deliberation, therefore, we shall analyse the validity of reopening of assessment. Considering the totality of facts, we find that reassessment proceedings will be invalid, in case, the assessment order itself records that the issue was raised and decided that too while framing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings in this case is hit by the principle of "change of opinion" because reassessment proceedings will be invalid as notices/queries were raised by the Assessing Officer a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment proceedings on the basis of facts, which are incorrect and wrong. The reasons recorded and the documents on record are of paramount importance and will have to be examined to determine whether the stand of the Revenue is correct. If a subject-matter, entry or claim/deduction is not examined by an Assessing Officer, it cannot be presumed that he must have examined the claim/deduction or the entry, and, therefore, it is a case of "change of opinion". When at the first instance, in the original assessment proceedings, no opinion is formed, the principle of "change of opinion" cannot and does not apply. There is a difference between "change of opinion" and "failure or omission" of the Assessing Officer to form an opinion on a subject-matter, entry, claim, deduction, etc. When the Assessing Officer fails to examine a subject-matter, entry, claim or deduction, he forms no opinion. It is a case of no opinion. Whether or not the Assessing Officer had applied his mind and examined the subject-matter, claim, etc., depends upon factual matrix of each case. The Assessing Officer can examine a claim or subject-matter even without raising a written query. There can be cases where an aspect ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) (para 45) CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) (paras 9, 34) CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1) [1989] 177 ITR 124 (Bom) (para 21) CIT v. DLF Power Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 446 (Delhi) (para 14) CIT v. Eicher Ltd. [2007] 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) (paras 10, 28) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB] (paras 2, 12, 20, 48) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) (paras 2, 28) CIT v. Khemchand Ramdas [1938] 6 ITR 414 (PC) (para 50) CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) (para 18) CIT (Asst.) v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) (paras 4, 12) CIT v. Sharma (H. P.) [1980] 122 ITR 675 (Delhi) (para 9) Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. v. Asst.CIT [2006] 281 ITR 394 (Delhi) (paras 9, 11) Dalmia P. Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 469 (Delhi) (para 17) G. R. Ramachari and Co. v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 142 (Mad) (paras 38, 61) Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437 (P&H) (para 10) ITO v. Habibullah (S. K.) [1962] 44 ITR 809 (SC) (para 50) Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC) (paras 34, 35) Ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or re-compute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub- section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year. Explanation 1.-Production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e should be failure or omission on the part of the assessee in disclosing full and true material facts. The Explanation to the section stipulates that mere production of books of account or other documents from which the Assessing Officer could have, with due diligence, inferred material facts, does not amount to "full and true disclosure of material facts" (the proviso is not applicable where reasons to believe for issue of notice are recorded and notice is issued within four years from the end of assessment year). 2.7. The expression "change of opinion" postulates "formation of opinion" and then a "change thereof". In the context of section 147 of the Act it implies that the Assessing Officer should have formed an opinion at the first instance, i.e., in the proceedings under section 143(3) and thereafter, with the initiation of the reassessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer proposes or wants to take a different view. The word "opinion" is derived from the latin word "opinari" which means "to believe", "to think". The word "opinion" as per the Black's Law Dictionary means a statement by a judge or a court of a decision reached by him incorporating cause tried or argued be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts of the Supreme Court referred to above, which are binding upon us and the observations made by the High Court of Gujarat with which we find ourselves in respectful agreement, the action initiated by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment cannot be said to be either incompetent or otherwise improper to call for interference by a writ court. The Assessing Officer has in the reasoned order passed by him indicated the basis on which income exigible to tax had in his opinion escaped assessment. The argument that the proposed reopening of assessment was based only upon a change of opinion has not impressed us. The assessment order did not admittedly address itself to the question which the Assessing Officer proposes to examine in the course of reassessment proceedings. The submission of Mr. Vohra that even when the order of assessment did not record any explicit opinion on the aspects now sought to be examined, it must be presumed that those aspects were present to the mind of the Assessing Officer and had been held in favour of the assessee is too far-fetched a proposition to merit acceptance. There may indeed be a presumption that the assessment proceedings have been re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n such situations it should be accepted that the issue was examined but the Assessing Officer did not find any ground or reason to make addition or reject the stand of the assessee. He forms an opinion. The reassessment will be invalid because the Assessing Officer had formed an opinion in the original assessment, though he had not recorded his reasons. 2.11. Thus, where an Assessing Officer incorrectly or erroneously applies law or comes to a wrong conclusion and income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, resort may be made through section 263 of the Act. But initiation of reassessment proceedings will be invalid on the ground of change of opinion. Here a distinction has to be drawn between erroneous application/interpretation/ understanding of law and cases where fresh or new factual information comes to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer subsequent to the passing of the assessment order. If new facts, material or information comes to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer, which was not on record and available at the time of the assessment order, the principle of "change of opinion" will not apply. The reason is that "opinion" is formed on facts. "Opinion" formed or b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi), referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) and made following observations. (page 392) : "In the case of CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC), the apex court held that the audit party can point out a fact, which has been overlooked by the Income-tax Officer in the assessment. Though there cannot be any interpretation of law by the audit party, it is entitled to point out a factual error or omission in the assessment and reopening of a case on the basis of factual error or omission pointed out by the audit party is permissible under law. As the Tribunal has rightly noticed, this was not a case of the Assessing Officer merely acting at the behest of the audit party or on its report. It has independently examined the materials collected by the audit party in its report and has come to an independent conclusion that there was escapement of income. The answer to the question is, therefore, in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee." "As recorded above, the reasons recorded or the documents available must show nex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC) wherein it was observed that some of the observations made in Kalyanji Mavji (supra) were far too wide and the statute did not permit reappraisal of material considered by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment. The observations in Kalyanji Maviji (supra), relied upon by the Ld. DR, that reopening would cover a case "where income has escaped assessment due to the oversight, inadvertence or mistake" was too broadly expressed and did not lay down the correct law. It was clarified and observed at page 1004 in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC) as under: "Now, in the case before us, the Income-tax Officer had, when he made the original assessment, considered the provisions of sections 9 and 10. Any different view taken by him afterwards on the application of those provisions would amount to a change of opinion on material already considered by him. The Revenue contends that it is open to him to do so, and on that basis to reopen the assessment under section 147(b). Reliance is placed on Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC), where a Bench of two learned judges of this cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ining the revenue from proceeding with the assessment for the assessment year 2007-08. The passing of an order on 19-12-2013 by the Assessing Officer in undue haste and thereafter contending that in view of alternative remedy the writ petition should not be entertained does not appear bona fide. This undue haste in passing the impugned order dated 19-12-2013 is an attempt to overreach the Court and to thwart the assessee's challenge to the impugned order dated 20-11-2013 pending before the High Court. [Para 6] ■ In the above circumstances, the order dated 19-12-2013 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 147 was liable to be set aside. [Para 7] ■ The power of the Assessing Officer under sections 147 and 148 to reopen an assessment is classified into two: (a) Reopening of assessment within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and (b) Reopening of assessment beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. ■ The common jurisdictional requirement for reopening of assessment both within and beyond a period of four years has to be on the basis of reason to believe th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther person in issuing the notice. Moreover the tangible material upon the basis of which the Assessing Officer comes to the reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment can come to him from any source. However, the reasons for the reopening have to be only of the Assessing Officer issuing the notice. At the stage of issuing notice under section 148 to reopen a concluded assessment, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer issuing the notice is of primary importance. This satisfaction must be prima facie satisfaction of having a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. At the stage of the issuing of the notice under section 148 it is not necessary for the Assessing Officer to establish beyond doubt that income indeed has escaped assessment. [Para 12] ■ The parties proceeded on the basis that the impugned notice dated 28-3-2013 seeking to reopen the assessment was a notice within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The reason seeking to reopen the assessment is that the assessee had so written/manipulated its account that the normal business profit in share trading was claimed as short....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rial, namely, audit report furnished by the internal audit department of the revenue. Neither the reasons furnished to the assessee disclose the material obtained from the audit report of the internal audit department of the revenue as the basis for reopening assessment, nor the order dated 20-11-2013 rejecting the assessee's objection state that the ground for reopening is the tangible material disclosed by the internal audit department of the revenue. The Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever v. R.B.Wadkar [2004] 268 ITR 332/137 Taxman 479 has held that the challenge to reopening of an assessment can only be resisted on the basis of the reasons recorded at the time of issuance of notice and no further reasons either orally at the bar or by filing of an affidavit can be considered to meet the challenge to reopening of an assessment. Therefore, it would not be permissible for the revenue to advance submissions on the basis of an audit report, which was not basis of the reasons recorded at the time of issuing notice under section 148. [Para 15] ■ Be that as it may, even if, one examines audit report dated 29-9-2011 from the internal audit department it would b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T v. Gopal Purohit [2011] 336 ITR 287/[2010] 188 Taxman 140 (Bom.) (para 9), * CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561/187 Taxman 312 (SC) (para 11) 2.16. In another case in CIT vs Amitabh Bachhan (2012) 349 ITR 76 (Bom.), the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court observed/held as under:- "This appeal by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") challenges the order March 19, 2010, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in respect of the assessment year 2002-03. 2. Being aggrieved, the appellant has raised the following questions of law for consideration by this court. "(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Assessing Officer was not justified in initiating proceedings under section 147 of the Act and, accordingly, upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in holding that the whole assessment is annulled ? (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal in law was right in holding that the Assessing Officer was not justified....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shed. Details in respect of S. B. A/c. No. 107456 with SBI were neither provided nor called for by the Assessing Officer which might have been maintained by the assessee for professional receipts from EEL/Star TV, etc. (vi) Receipts of dividend from Vithal Nagar Co-operative Society with reference to investment in house property. (vii) Sources of cash deposits in savings bank A/c. No. 11155 (viii) Distribution income from M/s. Ethnic Enterprises. (ix) Deposits in S. B. A/c. No. 11155 under the head "Receipts on behalf of Mrs. Jaya Bachchan." 5. Consequent to the above notice by an order dated December 31, 2007, the respondent was assessed to a total income of Rs. 20.05 crores. This was arrived at after adding an amount of Rs. 6.31 crores as unexplained expenses under section 69C of the said Act for which notice under section 148 of the said Act had been issued. 6. The respondent-assessee carried the matter in appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), challenging the initiation of proceeding under section 147 of the said Act and consequent completion of reassessment by order dated December 31, 2007. By an order dated March 4, 2009, the Commissioner of Income-ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs." 2.17. In A. L. A. Firm (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court explained that there was no difference between the observations of the Supreme Court in Kalyanji Maviji [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) and Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society case [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC), as far as proposition (4) is concerned. It was held that (page 297 of 189 ITR) : "We have pointed out earlier that Kalyanji Maviji's case [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) outlines four situations in which action under section 34(1)(b) can be validly initiated. The Indian Eastern Newspaper Society's case [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC) has only indicated that propo sition (2) outlined in this case and extracted earlier may have been somewhat widely stated ; it has not cast any doubt on the other three propositions set out in Kalyanji Mavji's case. The facts of the present case squarely fall within the scope of propositions 2 and 4 enunciated in Kalyanji Maviji's case [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC). Proposition (2) may be briefly summarized as permitting action even on a 'mere change of opinion'. This is what has been doubted in the Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society case [1979] 119 I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een missed earlier, for e.g., as in the two Madras decisions referred to earlier. Proposition (2) no doubt covers this situation also but it is so widely expressed as to include also cases in which the Income-tax Officer, having considered all the facts and law, arrives at a particular conclusion, but reinitiates proceedings because, on a reappraisal of the same material which had been considered earlier and in the light of the same legal aspects to which his attention had been drawn earlier, he comes to a conclusion that an item of income which he had earlier consciously left out from the earlier assessment should have been brought to tax. In other words, as pointed out in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society's case [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC), it also ropes in cases of a 'bare or mere change of opinion' where the Income-tax Officer (very often a successor officer) attempts to reopen the assessment because the opinion formed earlier by himself (or, more often, by a predecessor Income- tax Officer) was, in his opinion, incorrect. Judicial decisions had consistently held that this could not be done and the Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society's case [1979] 119 ITR 996 (S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Supreme Court was, therefore, conscious of the said principle, when the observations mentioned above in A. L. A. Firm [1991] 189 ITR 285 were made. 2.19. Under the amended provisions of section 147, an assessment can be reopened if the Assessing Officer has "reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; but if he wants to do so after a period of four years from the end of the assessment year, he can do so only if the assessee has fallen short of his duty to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. It does not follow that he cannot reopen the assessment even within the period of four years as aforesaid if he has reason to believe that the assessee has failed to make the requisite disclosure. All that the section says is that in a case where the assessment is sought to be reopened after the period of four years, the only reason available to the Assessing Officer is the non-disclosure of material facts on the part of the assessee. The Act places a general duty on every assessee to furnish full and true particulars along with the return of income or in the course of the assessment proceedings so that the Assessing Officer is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....355 ITR 348 (Guj.), B.B.C. World News Ltd. vs Asst. DIT (2014) 362 ITR 577 (Del.). Identical ratio was laid down in CIT vs Malayala Manorma Company Ltd. (2002) 253 ITR 378 (Ker.) We think this thread runs through the various provisions of the Act. But Explanation 1 to the section confines the duty to the disclosure of all primary and material facts necessary for the assessment, fully and truly. As to what are material or primary facts would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no universal formula may be attempted. The legal or factual inferences from those primary or material facts are for the Assessing Officer to draw in order to complete the assessment and it is not for the assessee to advise him, for obvious reasons. The Explanation, however, cautions the assessee that he cannot remain smug with the belief that since the assessee has produced the books of account before the Assessing Officer from which material or evidence could have been with due diligence gathered by him, he has discharged his duty. It is for him to point out the relevant entries which are material, without leaving that exercise to the Assessing Officer. The caveat, however, is that such p....