2022 (3) TMI 729 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - HELD THAT - Respondent No.1 has initiated re-assessment proceedings passed only on audit objection raised by the Revenue and to which the then AO i.e. ACIT Bangalore had replied and states in its letter dated 30th March 2011 and there is no error in the original assessment completed by him and that audit objection is not accepted by him. Therefore if the AO after application of mind to the facts of the case passes the original assessment order and comes to a certain conclusion and thereafter even does not accept audit objection raised by the audit party on the said conclusion re-opening by the subsequent Assessing Officer only on the basis of such audit objection is bad in law. This has been raised in ground F to the petition and in the affidavit in reply of one Mr. P.D. Chougule affirmed on 25th June 2015 respondent admit that the contents thereof are true and correct.

Issues involved:
1. Challenge to assessment order dated 11th February, 2015 based on the legality and validity of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Reopening of assessment for the Assessment Year 2007-08 based on directions from superiors without independent application of mind.
3. Defiance of court directions by the Assessing Officer in passing the assessment order contrary to the prescribed period after disposing of objections.
4. Consideration of action against the Assessing Officer for passing orders in defiance of court orders.
5. Quashing and setting aside of the assessment order dated 11th February, 2015 and the reopening notice dated 31st March, 2014.
6. Invalidity of reopening assessment solely based on audit objections without independent assessment by the Assessing Officer.
7. Granting of interim relief in terms of prayer clause.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The petition challenged the assessment order dated 11th February, 2015, arguing that the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act dated 31st March, 2014, was legally flawed. The petitioner contended that the assessment order should be disregarded as it was passed contrary to the directions of a Division Bench judgment of the Court. The petitioner sought the opportunity to challenge the legality and validity of the notice under section 148.

2. The Court noted that the reopening of the assessment for the Assessment Year 2007-08 was initiated based on directions from superiors without an independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The reopening notice dated 31st March, 2014, was stayed as it appeared to have been issued without proper consideration. The Court emphasized the importance of the Assessing Officer applying their mind independently before initiating reassessment proceedings.

3. The Assessing Officer's actions were found to be in defiance of the Court's directions, as the assessment order under Section 143(3) was passed immediately after disposing of objections, contrary to the prescribed waiting period of four weeks. The Court considered the Assessing Officer's lack of awareness of the Court's order but noted that no offer had been made to withdraw the order passed in defiance. The issue of action against the Assessing Officer was to be considered at the final hearing.

4. The Court, in agreement with its previous observations, quashed and set aside the assessment order dated 11th February, 2015, and the reopening notice dated 31st March, 2014. It was highlighted that the reopening notice was issued without independent application of mind and solely on the directions of a superior officer, rendering it invalid.

5. The Court also addressed the invalidity of reopening assessments based solely on audit objections without independent assessment by the Assessing Officer. The petition was allowed, and the Court issued a writ to quash and set aside the impugned notice and orders related to the assessment.

6. The judgment granted interim relief in terms of the prayer clause, disposing of the petition in favor of the petitioner and highlighting the importance of independent assessment by the Assessing Officer before initiating reassessment proceedings.

← Previous Next →