2020 (1) TMI 1061 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - mere change of opinion - HELD THAT - Petitioner has raised several contentions touching upon the merits of the notice issued u/s 148 including the limitation and also by contending that it is based on change of opinion, but these contentions cannot be considered at this stage now, since the petitioner is bound to give objections to the reasons for reopening and thereafter, AO has to pass a reasoned order, as observed by the Apex Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. case 2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT . When such course of action is yet to be completed, these writ petitions at this stage can be maintained any further. Therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner against the impugned notice, these writ petitions are disposed of, by granting liberty to the petitioner to give objections to the reasons for reopening, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such objections, the Assessing Officer shall consider the same and pass a reasoned order, within a period of four weeks thereafter.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging notice under Section 148 for reopening assessment for multiple assessment years.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with three writ petitions challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to reopen assessments for the years 1999-2000, 2001-2002, and 2002-2003 on the grounds that the petitioner's income has escaped assessment. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued based on a mere change of opinion and was beyond the four-year period. The petitioner sought interference by the court to set aside the notice.

The senior standing counsel for the Revenue argued that the challenge to the notice at this stage is not maintainable as per the decision in "GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO." It was pointed out that the petitioner had already been provided with the reasons for reopening and should have raised objections before the Assessing Officer. The counsel emphasized that the petitioner approached the court prematurely before completing the required objections process.

The court, after hearing both parties, acknowledged the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the merits of the notice, including limitations and change of opinion. However, the court held that at this stage, the petitioner must first provide objections to the reasons for reopening, as directed by the Apex Court in the "GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. case." The court disposed of the writ petitions, granting the petitioner four weeks to submit objections to the reasons for reopening. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer was instructed to consider the objections and pass a reasoned order within four weeks. The parties were advised to proceed further based on the Assessing Officer's order.

In conclusion, the court did not delve into the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner against the notice, emphasizing the procedural requirement of providing objections before the Assessing Officer. The judgment aimed to ensure compliance with the legal process by granting the petitioner the opportunity to present objections before any further action is taken.