Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. ACIT (2022] 286 Taxman 324 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Audit objection-Security deposit-Interest expenditure-Change of opinion-Reassessment was quashed. [S. 37(1), 148, Art, 226]

Allowing the petition the Court held that basis for reopening assessment was merely audit objections  relying on the documents already filed before the Assessing Officer. There was no failure on part of assessee to truly and fully disclose facts, it could not be said that Assessing Officer had reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. Reassessment was quashed.  The AO cannot take recourse to reopen to remedy the error resulting from his own oversight relied Gemmeni Leather Stores v. ITO (1975) 100 ITR 1 (SC).  (AY. 2012-13)