9911796707
TMI BlogReassessment Proceedings: Navigating the ComplexitiesX X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issuing notices u/s 148 , the requirement of a Document Identification Number (DIN), the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue such notices, the concept of escapement of income, the doctrine of change of opinion, and the validity of the approval granted by the sanctioning authority. Arguments Presented The respondents contended that the applicability of Section 148 of the Act is on a random basis, implying that the provision itself would be arbitrary and unreasonable, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India . They argued that randomly selecting cases for reopening without any basis or criteria would mean that the section is applied by the Revenue in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner. The respondents further claimed tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The issues raised in the impugned order do not show an alleged escapement of income represented in the form of an asset or expenditure in respect of a transaction in relation to an event or an entry in the books of account, as required u/s 149(1)(b) of the Act . The respondent has proposed to reopen the assessment based on a change of opinion, which is not permissible. When the claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act has been consistently allowed in favor of the petitioner by the Assessing Officers/Appellate Authorities in earlier years, the Assessing Officer cannot have a belief that there is escapement of income. The approval granted by the sanctioning authority was valid. Analysis of the Court The Court's analysis is based on a thor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sented in the form of an asset or expenditure, as required u/s 149(1)(b) of the Act. The Court's analysis of the doctrine of change of opinion is equally significant. It reiterated the well-established principle that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated based on a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer. The Court relied on several judicial precedents to emphasize that the power to reassess cannot be exercised to review an assessment. Furthermore, the Court held that when the claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act has been consistently allowed in favor of the petitioner in earlier years, the Assessing Officer cannot have a belief that there is escapement of income. This finding upholds the principles of consistency and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licable for the Assessment Year 2015-2016, and notices issued after March 31, 2021, cannot travel back to the original date. The impugned notice was found to be invalid due to the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) and for being issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), as required by the Scheme dated March 29, 2022. The Court emphasized that the Scheme is mandatory and requires notices u/s 148 to be issued through automated allocation and in a faceless manner by the NFAC. Additionally, the Court held that the issues raised in the impugned order do not constitute escapement of income as required u/s 149(1)(b) of the Act . The Court reiterated the well-estab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
