Search Results For: Change of opinion


Precilion Holdings Limited vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: February 25, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 9, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/148: If the AO is of the opinion that the issue requires verification, it tantamounts to fishing or roving inquiry. He is not permitted to reopen merely because in the later year, he took a different view on the basis of similar material. Even if the question of taxing interest income under the DTAA was not in the mind of the AO when he passed the assessment, he cannot reopen if there is no failure to disclose truly and fully all material facts

If during the assessment of the later assessment year, the Assessing officer collects or chances upon new material which may have bearing on the assessment of the assessee, and in case where the assessment is sought to be reopened beyond four years, he can also establish lack of true and full disclosures on the part of the assessee, it may be open for him to reopen assessment of the earlier year. However, merely because in the later year, the Assessing Officer takes a different view on the basis of similar material, which may have been collected during such process, would not permit him to reopen the assessment

FIS Global Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd vs. PCIT (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 16, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 7, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/ 148: A report of the Revenue audit party is merely information and opinion. It is not new or fresh or tangible material. If the reassessment notice is solely based on an audit opinion, it means it is issued on change of opinion which is not permissible

We find that the arguments on behalf of the petitioner are well founded and it must succeed. The audit report merely gives an opinion with regard to the non-availability of the deduction both under section 80-IA was not deducted from the profits of the business while computing deduction under section 80HHC. Clearly, therefore, there was no new or fresh material before the Assessing Officer except the opinion of the Revenue audit party. Since it is settled law that mere change of opinion cannot form the basis for issuing of a notice under section 147/148 of the Act, therefore, we do not propose to burden out judgment with the said judgments

State Bank Of India vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: , ,
DATE: June 15, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 10, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2013-14
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: The computation of income is the basic document for making the s. 143(3) assessment. If there is a disclosure in the computation, it leads to the prima facie necessary inference that there is application of mind by the AO. The fact that the AO did not raise specific queries & is silent in the assessment order does not mean there is no application of mind (Techspan 404 ITR 10(SC) followed, other contra judgements distinguished)

There was also no reason in the present facts for the Assessing Officer to ask any queries in respect of this claim of the petitioner, as the basic document viz. computation of income at note 21 (Assessment Year 2013-14) and note 22 (Assessment Year 2014-15) thereof explained the basis of the claim being made to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. Thus, it must necessarily be inferred that the Assessing Officer has applied his mind at the time of passing an assessment order to this particular claim made in the basic document viz. computation of the income by not disallowing it in proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act as he was satisfied with the basis of the claim as indicated in that very document. Therefore, where he accepts the claim made, the occasion to ask questions on it will not arise nor does it have to be indicated in the order passed in the regular assessment proceedings. Thus, issuing the impugned notices on the above ground would, prima-facie, amount to a change of opinion

ITO vs. TechSpan India Private Ltd (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 24, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 26, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2001-02
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/ 148: In order to constitute "change in opinion", the assessment earlier made must either expressly or by necessary implication have expressed an opinion on the subject matter of reopening. If the assessment order is non-speaking, cryptic or perfunctory in nature, it may be difficult to attribute to the AO any opinion on the questions that are raised in the proposed re-assessment proceedings. The reassessment cannot be struck down as being based on "change of opinion" if the assessment order does not address itself to the aspect sought to be examined in the re-assessment proceedings.

Before interfering with the proposed re-opening of the assessment on the ground that the same is based only on a change in opinion, the court ought to verify whether the assessment earlier made has either expressly or by necessary implication expressed an opinion on a matter which is the basis of the alleged escapement of income that was taxable. If the assessment order is non-speaking, cryptic or perfunctory in nature, it may be difficult to attribute to the assessing officer any opinion on the questions that are raised in the proposed re-assessment proceedings. Every attempt to bring to tax, income that has escaped assessment, cannot be absorbed by judicial intervention on an assumed change of opinion even in cases where the order of assessment does not address itself to a given aspect sought to be examined in the re-assessment proceedings.

Crescent Construction Co vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 26, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 15, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/ 148: Entire law on reopening of assessments in the context of "change of opinion" vs. "failure to apply mind", with reference to s. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and all judgements on the point discussed

Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872, is permissive and not a mandatory provision. Nine situations by way of illustrations are stated, which are by way of example or guidelines. As a permissive provision it enables to judge to support his judgment but there is no scope of presumption when facts are known. Presumption of facts under section 114 is rebuttable. The presumption raised under illustration (e) to section 114 of the Act means that when an official act is proved to have been done, it will be presumed to have been regularly done but it does not raise any presumption that an act was done for which there is no evidence or proof

DIT vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India Ltd (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: , ,
DATE: May 18, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 27, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 1998-99, 1999-00, 2001-02
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/148 reassessment has to be based on "fresh material". A reopening based on reappraisal of existing material is invalid. The assessee's duty is only to disclose facts and not to make inferences. Consolidated Photo 281 ITR 394 (Del) is not good law

The reopening was not based on any fresh material. By revisiting the same materials the successor AO now concluded that the payments received by the Assessee pursuant to the O&M Agreements should be treated as FTS. In the circumstances, the view taken by a successor AO on the same material was indeed nothing but a mere change of opinion. It is a well-settled legal proposition, as explained in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191(SC) that once an Assessee has discharged the burden of not only producing the account books and other documents, but also the specific material relevant to the assessment, “it is for the Income-tax Officer to draw the proper inferences of fact and law therefrom and the Assessee cannot further be called upon to do so for him.” In Indian Oil Corporation v. ITO [1986] 159 ITR 956 the Court pertinently observed “it is for the taxing authority to draw inference. It is not necessary for the Assessee to draw inference.” These observations apply on all fours to the case on hand

Vijay Power Generators Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: March 30, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 10, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: Reopening in the absence of fresh material and merely on change of opinion is nor permissible

Assessee had made full and true disclosure during the original assessment proceedings. We are also of the view that reopening had been done merely on change of opinion in as much as that in the original assessment made u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act. We also find that AO has no fresh material to form his opinion regarding escapement of assessment and he has also not found any tangible material to record the reasons for reopening of the assessment of the assessee. It is a settled law that merely change of opinion is not permissible under the law

Asiatic Oxygen Limited vs. DCIT (Calcutta High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 29, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 5, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-200
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
The formal reasons given in support of reopening the case cannot be added to or subtracted from or improved in the affidavit-in-opposition

In Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar, Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax And Others (No.1) reported in 268 ITR 322 (Bombay) and Aroni Commercials Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax And Another reported in (2014) 362 ITR 403(Bom) both Division Bench

Top