Allowing the petition the Court held that on the basis of very same material which was made available during the course of assessment proceeding, the authority has come out with a case that this figure of Rs. 24.63 crores deserves to be added and for that purpose reopening tried to be justified. So essentially there is no tangible material or fresh material on the basis of which an attempt is made to reopen the assessment and undisputedly this figure of controversy was very much placed by the assessee before AO and while passing assessment order, the AO has not made any addition and as such on the basis of very same material, now a view is taken by an authority that this figure deserves to be added and as such this amounts to a change of opinion which is not permissible. The notice as well as order are hereby quashed and set aside. Followed, Anupam Rasayan India Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 76 laxmann.com 39 (Guj)(HC)) Shanti Enterprise v ITO (2016) 76 taxmann.com 184 (Guj) (HC) and Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (2022) 325 CTR 241/ 211 DTR 99(Bom) (HC) (AY. 2015-16)
Axis Bank Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 336 CTR 206 (Guj.)(HC)
S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No failure to disclose material facts-Bad debt-Specific question was raised in the course of assessment proceedings-Change of opinion-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed and set aside.[S.36(1)(vii), 142(1), 148, Art. 226]