TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 675
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in W.P.No.33896 of 2018, dated 16.04.2021. 2.In this judgment, we shall refer to the appellant as "assessee" and the respondent as "Revenue". 3.The assessee filed the writ petition to quash the notice issued by the respondent/Revenue, dated 31.07.2017, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for brevity) and the consequential order passed by the Revenue, dated 07.11.2018, disposing of the objections raised by the assessee by passing a speaking order. 4.We have elaborately heard Mr.R.Sandeep Bagmar, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent/Revenue. 5.The learned Writ Court was primarily of the view that the assessee should raise all issue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der the third proviso. The next contention is that the reopening is a clear case of change of opinion, and finally, that the Assessing Officer has not brought out any new tangible material to justify the reopening. 7.Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent/Revenue, sought to sustain the reopening proceedings by referring to the reasons for reopening. It is submitted that, at the first instance before the Assessing Officer, the issue was whether there was a slump sale. The said issue traveled up to the Tribunal and was decided against the Revenue. However, on a reading of the reasons for reopening, it is seen that the Department had reopened the proceedings on the ground that the assessee has debited an amount ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... upon the fact that the Assessing Officer has some reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Income Tax Officer, Ward No.16(2) v. M/s.TechSpan India Private Limited and another reported in (2018) 404 ITR 10 (SC) held that the words "reasons to believe" in Section 147 have to be interpreted schematically, as liberal interpretation would have the consequence of conferring arbitrary powers on the Assessing Officer who may even initiate re-assessment proceedings merely on his change of opinion on the basis of some facts and circumstances which have already been considered by him during the original assessment proceedings. Thus, it was held that, this cannot be the intention of the legis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cause notice issued to the assessee, dated 14.03.2014. The assessee submitted his reply specifically pointing out about the agreement as to how the deal did not fructify all other matters related thereto. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment by holding that the transfer had taken place as per Section 50- B of the Act and also that the assessee agreed that the share of profit is to be paid to M/s.Miracle Cars India Pvt. Ltd., from which, it is proved that the transfer had taken place, without the transfer, the assessee is not liable to share its profit with M/s.Miracle Cars India Private Limited, but by sharing the profit with M/s.Miracle Cars India Private Limited, it is very clear that the transfer had taken place. 10.Aggrieve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....legation made by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had failed to fully and truly disclose all relevant materials for completing the assessment. Therefore, we are of the view that the reopening was a clear case of change of opinion. Furthermore, we find from the reasons dated 26.09.2017 that there is no whisper of any tangible material, and all information has been culled out from the returns filed by the assessee and the agreement, dated 30.06.2010, which was very much available when the original assessment was completed vide order dated 31.03.2014. 12.We find that the Revenue had filed a Miscellaneous Petition in M.P.No.265 of 2017 in I.T.A.No.2727/Mds/2016, in which, they had stated that the assessee had produced new material ....