2024 (12) TMI 565 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - reason to believe - unsecured loans was availed by the petitioner - change of opinion - HELD THAT - The issue of availing unsecured loan from Phulchand Export Pvt. Ltd. was scrutinized during the regular assessment proceedings by the then the AO as the petitioner was called upon to furnish the details which was provided by the petitioner containing the confirmation letter ITR and the bank statement of the said party from whom the unsecured loans was availed by the petitioner. AO having been satisfied from the details provided by the petitioner it cannot be said that there is any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts. As further revealed from the facts of the case that merely because Phulchand Export Pvt. Ltd has incurred loss for the year under consideration it cannot be the ground to reopen the assessment doubting the creditworthiness and genuineness of the unsecured loan such as having sufficient surplus savings and funds booked by capital assets to provide loan to the assessee. The law is well settled with regard to the facts of the case . Once the issue is already scrutinized during the regular course of assessment the same issue cannot be considered for assumption of the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment as it would amount to mere change of opinion. This is a classic case of mere change of opinion by the AO for reopening of the assessment and therefore the impugned notice is held to be issued without jurisdiction. Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reopening the assessment.
2. Alleged change of opinion by the Assessing Officer.
3. Requirement of new tangible material for reopening an assessment.
4. Jurisdictional validity of the notice under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Notice under Section 148:
The petitioner challenged the notice dated 27th March 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The petitioner argued that the reopening of the assessment was based on a mere change of opinion, as the issue of unsecured loans from Phulchand Export Pvt. Ltd. was already scrutinized during the original assessment proceedings under Section 143(3). The court noted that the Assessing Officer had accepted the petitioner's income after considering the details provided, including confirmation statements, ITR, and bank statements. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment lacked new material evidence and was deemed illegal.

2. Alleged Change of Opinion:
The petitioner contended that the reopening was a result of the Assessing Officer's change of opinion, which is impermissible under the law. The court referenced the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., which emphasized that a mere change of opinion does not justify reopening an assessment. The court concluded that the Assessing Officer's actions amounted to a change of opinion, as the issue had been thoroughly examined during the original proceedings, and no new material was presented to justify the reopening.

3. Requirement of New Tangible Material:
The respondent argued that the reopening was justified as there was a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. However, the court held that the absence of new tangible material meant that the reopening was based solely on re-examining previously considered facts. The court cited legal precedents, emphasizing that reopening requires new material evidence, not merely a re-evaluation of existing information.

4. Jurisdictional Validity under Article 226:
The petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the jurisdictional validity of the notice. The court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction, concluding that the notice was issued without jurisdiction due to the lack of new material evidence and the impermissibility of reopening based on a change of opinion. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside both the notice dated 27th March 2021 and the order dated 23rd March 2024 disposing of the objections.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, ruling that the impugned notice under Section 148 was issued without jurisdiction and constituted a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer. The court emphasized the necessity of new tangible material for reopening assessments and upheld the legal principle that a change of opinion cannot justify such actions. The decision reinforced the protection against arbitrary reopening of assessments, ensuring adherence to established legal standards.

← Previous Next →