2014 (5) TMI 627 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 and 148 of the Act Mere change of opinion Held that - The assessment could not have been reopened in the manner done by the AO - When the assessee had disclosed all the details, particulars and the income was assessed, then, mere change of opinion would not justify passing of the order dated 31st March, 2003, is the conclusion reached concurrently in this case - The assessment years under consideration, namely, 1993-1994 to 1997-1998, the assessee disclosed the income and on identical lines that was assessed - If that was assessed, there was no necessity of issuing a notice to reopen it and particularly when there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and precisely all material facts necessary for making an assessment no substantial question of law arises for consideration Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Appeal challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Formulation of a substantial question of law.
3. Reopening of assessment by the Assessing Officer.
4. Justification for passing the impugned order.
5. Failure to meet statutory requirements.
6. Assessment years under consideration.
7. Necessity of issuing a notice to reopen the assessment.
8. Failure to disclose material facts for assessment.

Analysis:

1. The appeal filed by the revenue challenges the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The substantial question of law framed in the memo of appeal is under scrutiny. The counsel for the petitioner requested time to reframe the question, but the Court did not appreciate this course of action, emphasizing that the appeal was filed long ago, and the question should have been correctly formulated earlier.

2. The Court queried the justification for considering the appeal to raise a substantial question of law. The facts revealed that the assessee, a manufacturing company, had disclosed all details and income, leading to the conclusion that the assessment could not have been reopened merely on a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer. Both the Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) found the Assessing Officer's exercise unjustified, as the belief should align with statutory provisions.

3. The Tribunal specifically noted that the revenue's actions were impermissible given the circumstances. The assessment years in question showed that the income disclosed by the assessee was in line with the assessment made. Issuing a notice to reopen the assessment was deemed unnecessary, especially when there was no failure to disclose material facts. The revenue failed to justify their actions both procedurally and on merit, leading the Court to dismiss the appeal as frivolous and devoid of any substantial question of law.

4. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the assessment could not have been reopened based solely on a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer. The failure to meet statutory requirements and the lack of justification for the impugned order led to the appeal being deemed entirely frivolous and unworthy of consideration for raising any substantial question of law.