2023 (4) TMI 538 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - dissonance in the sales turnover, as indicated in the ITR and the Tax Audit Report i.e., Form 3CD - HELD THAT - As would be evident, we had granted four weeks to respondent/revenue to file a counter-affidavit in the matter. On the next returnable date i.e., 07.09.2022, once again further four weeks were granted to respondent/revenue to file counter-affidavit. On that date, interim order dated 04.02.2022 was made absolute during the pendency of the writ petition and accordingly, interlocutory applications were disposed of. It is in this backdrop that the matter has been listed before the court today i.e., 27.03.2023. To be noted, there is a typographical error in the order dated 07.09.2022, as it indicates that the returnable date is 25.03.2022 instead of 27.03.2023. The record shows that the counter-affidavit despite opportunities being given in that behalf. According to us, this appears to be a case of change in opinion.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment addresses the issues of reassessment based on discrepancies in sales turnover between the Income Tax Return (ITR) and Tax Audit Report, the legality of initiating reassessment proceedings, and the principle of change of opinion by the Assessing Officer (AO).

Reassessment based on sales turnover discrepancies:
The petitioner's reassessment was initiated due to alleged discrepancies in the sales turnover as reported in the ITR and the Tax Audit Report. The court noted the petitioner's contention that the reconciliation statement was provided before the assessment order was passed, questioning the necessity of the impugned notice dated 30.03.2021. The court found this to be a case of change of opinion since a specific query was raised by the AO regarding the sales turnover, leading to an assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act. Consequently, the court issued notice and stayed the reassessment proceedings.

Reassessment proceedings history:
The court observed that the issue concerning the sales turnover discrepancies in the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 had also arisen in previous AYs, namely 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17. Regarding AY 2014-15, the court disposed of the writ petition, setting aside the notice and order, allowing the AO to take further steps lawfully. For AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17, reassessment proceedings were initiated but later dropped after receiving explanations from the petitioner via separate orders dated 15.03.2022.

Judgment and orders:
The court concluded that the impugned notice dated 30.03.2021 and the order dated 29.12.2021 should be set aside. The petitioner was granted liberty to file fresh objections and have a hearing if reassessment proceedings are recommenced. The AO was directed to make a decision on recommencing the proceedings within four weeks of receiving the judgment. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with the registry instructed to upload relevant orders for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17.