2023 (3) TMI 1052 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - period of limitation - factual error pointed out by the Revenue Audit Party - HELD THAT - Mere change of opinion on the part of the assessing officer is not a sufficient ground to re-open the assessment. We are in complete agreement with such a conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. There is no justifiable reason assigned by the AO for not initiating action to re-open the assessment before the period prescribed under the Act. While so, we find no error in the decision of the Tribunal. The audit party noticed that the certificate of recognition granted to the assessee expired on 22.09.1972 itself and therefore, the assessee trust cannot be recognised as a charitable trust during the assessment year in question and consequently the donation made to the trust will not qualify for deduction u/s 80G of the Act. It is in those circumstances, the assessing officer re-opened the assessment. The audit party is entitled to point out a factual error or omission in the assessment. reopening of the assessment in the light of factual errors pointed out by the audit party is permissible under law. In the present case, even though the assessment was reopened on the basis of the error pointed out by the revenue audit, the same was done after the period prescribed u/s 147. Tribunal is right in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee. Accordingly, the questions of law raised in this appeal are answered against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of reopening assessment based on factual error pointed out by Revenue Audit Party.
2. Legality of setting aside CIT order due to reopening notice issued beyond four years and change of opinion.

Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: The appellant challenged the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, questioning the validity of reopening the assessment based on a factual error pointed out by the Revenue Audit Party. The appellant contended that the Assessing Officer was justified in reopening the assessment due to the error, citing a Supreme Court judgment. However, the Tribunal held that the delay in reopening the assessment beyond four years from the relevant assessment year was legally impermissible. The Tribunal concluded that a mere change of opinion is not sufficient ground to reopen the assessment, which was agreed upon by the High Court judges.

Issue 2: The second issue involved the legality of setting aside the CIT order due to the reopening notice being issued beyond four years and the alleged change of opinion. The assessee argued that all material particulars were furnished, and there was no failure to disclose information, making the reassessment proceedings legally impermissible. The Tribunal, supported by various legal precedents, including a decision by the High Court, ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that a mere escape of income is insufficient to justify action under Section 147 of the Act after the prescribed time limit. The High Court judges concurred with the Tribunal's decision, stating that there was no justifiable reason for the Assessing Officer to delay reopening the assessment within the prescribed period.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the tax case appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision. The judges found no error in the Tribunal's conclusion, emphasizing that the delay in reopening the assessment was not sanctioned by law. They differentiated the present case from a Supreme Court judgment cited by the appellant, stating that while reopening based on audit party errors is permissible, it must be done within the prescribed timeframe. Therefore, the questions of law raised in the appeal were answered against the revenue, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without costs.