Allowing the petition, the Court held that from the reasons recorded, it does not appear that there was any fresh tangible material which has come to the notice of the AO between the date of the passing of the order under section 143(3) of the Act and the date of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. The AO has only tried to re-visit and reconsider the decision rendered in the earlier regular assessment proceedings on the ground that the addition ought not to have been limited only to Rs. 27,27,657/- and ought to have been extended to Rs. 3,60,135/-. The Court held that the view of the Assessing Officer is nothing but a change of opinion on the part of the AO, and therefore, impermissible in law. As the jurisdictional conditions with regard to section 147 of the Act have not been satisfied, order of assessment, dated 22nd March 2022, notice of demand dated 22nd March 2022, and penalty notice dated 22nd March 2022 shall also stand quashed. (AY. 2014-15)
Pushpa Nahata v. ITO (2023) 456 ITR 255/150 taxmann.com 84 / 292 Taxman 452 (Bom)(HC)
S. 147 : Reassessment–After the expiry of four years -Purchase and sale of shares – Reopening of assessment to make further additions on account of purchase cost of said shares being based on change of opinion on part of Assessing Officer was not justified– Reassessment notice and order was quashed. [S. 69, 148, Art. 226]