9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of reassessment framed u/s 148 based on 'change of opinion'. 2. Validity of reopening assessment within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Summary: Issue 1: Legality of reassessment framed u/s 148 based on 'change of opinion' The first legal issue raised by the assessee concerns the order of CIT(A) confirming the reassessment framed u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961, arguing that it is bad in law and void due to being based on a 'change of opinion'. The assessee contended that the original assessment was completed after thorough enquiries and issuance of notices u/s 142(1), and the reassessment was merely a change of opinion on already disclosed facts and audited books of account. The assessee filed its return declaring 'nil' income, which was processed u/s 143(1), followed by a notice u/s 143(2) and completion of the original assessment u/s 143(3). Subsequently, the AO issued a notice u/s 148 to reopen the assessment, citing reasons including excessive interest payments to specified persons u/s 40(A)(2)(b) compared to others. The assessee argued that all relevant details were provided during the original assessment, and the reassessment was based on the same facts, constituting a change of opinion. The Tribunal, after reviewing the case records, found that the assessee had indeed provided all necessary details during the original assessment. The AO had made queries and received responses, and the facts were before the AO at the time of the original assessment. The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment on the same facts amounted to a change of opinion, which is not permissible in law. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Foramer France and the Delhi High Court's decision in Jindal Photo Films Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT, which held that reassessment based on a change of opinion is not valid. Issue 2: Validity of reopening assessment within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year The notice u/s 148 was issued within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed all material facts necessary for the assessment during the original proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that if the AO chose not to give any finding on an issue during the original assessment, it could not be a ground for reopening the assessment. The Tribunal concluded that the reassessment proceedings were void and illegal as they were based on a mere change of opinion. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, quashing the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 r/w s. 148 as void and illegal. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as the jurisdictional issue had already been decided in favor of the assessee.
|
