TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 722
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It is made clear that the failure to pursue the petitions and their resultant dismissal will not prejudice the petitioning assessee in any other proceedings pending or that may be instituted in accordance with law. 3. The short consideration pertaining to the two earlier writ petitions which cover assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 revolves round the interpretation of Section 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 as its stood prior to its 2021 amendment. 4. At the outset, it is necessary to see the material part of the relevant provision and the applicable proviso: "147. If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and ... 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, unl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was, therefore, decided that the accounting procedure followed in other CPSUs under MOP will also be adopted in NEEPCO as well, even if it requires amendment to the accounts. 2. In this connection, I have spoken to Director (Finance), NTPC, Director (Finance), PGCIL and ED (Finance), NHPC about the above issue. All have confirmed that surcharge, post securitisation, is being accounted for on cash basis in their respective organisations, as against the accrual basis in NEEPCO. 3. In light of the above, I request you to record the decision of the Audit Committee that the annual accounts be modified so as to account for the surcharge on cash basis, with a corresponding disclosure in the schedule." 8. The two surviving petitions arise out of a common set of reasons asserted by the Department in an originally undated order passed under Section 147 of the Act prior to its 2021 amendment that was subsequently forwarded to the assessee under a cover of a letter dated March 26, 2019. It may be pertinent to quote the entirety of the reasons indicated for reopening or reassessment under Section 147 of the Act except the table that appears at paragraph 1.2 thereof which may not be relev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s are raised and there can be no dispute as to the quantum due and owing to the petitioner, cash-strapped State governments and State Electricity Boards make unusual requests for deferment of payment or waiver of the delayed payment surcharge or interest or the like and there are occasions when high authorities intervene. The petitioner claims that it does not have the choice to disconnect the supply of electricity in a coercive attempt to realise its dues. 11. According to the petitioner, the differential treatment of accounting in respect of delayed payment surcharge and interest is a consistent practice which has been followed since or about 2003 after receipt of the aforesaid letter from the Union Ministry of Power. The petitioner submits that it is also evident that other Central PSUs follow the same practice, particularly power generation and power distribution companies. The petitioner claims that since the petitioner's accounts for the corresponding financial years have been audited by the office of the Auditor and Accountant General, no less, there cannot be any allegation of the accounts being fudged or payments being received without being reflected in the accounts. 12....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....does not give authority to the relevant assessing officer to take a different view on a matter which has been previously considered in course of the original assessment. A change of opinion is not permissible under colour of "reason to believe". This would apply more so in respect of a notice seeking to reopen the matter pertaining to an assessment year more than four years after the end of the relevant assessment year. The orders issued under Section 147 of the Act in respect of assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 would not pass muster or stand scrutiny under the proviso to Section 147 of the Act. As a consequence, the corresponding notices issued under Section 148 of the Act are unsustainable. 17. In such view of the matter, the relevant notices issued under Section 148 of the Act for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 are set aside and WP (C) No.345 of 2019 and WP (C) No.346 of 2019 succeed, inter alia, inasmuch as there is no allegation in the orders passed under Section 147 of the Act that any material fact had been suppressed or not disclosed by the assessee. Indeed, what may have happened is that at the time of passing the assessment orders in respect of assessment years....