S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Short term capital loss-Long term capital gains-No specific allegation in the reopening notice to disclose any material facts- Reasons for reopening were based entirely on records already available during the original assessment- Reopening notice, order disposing the objection order, reassessment order, and the demand notice is quashed and held as invalid. [S. 45, 148, Art. 226]
The assessment of the petitioner was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The petitioner challenged the reopening notice, arguing it lacked jurisdiction and was based on materials already considered during the original assessment. The notice under Section 148 was issued after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The petitioner filed writ petition challenging the notice and order disposing the objection. Allowing the petition the Court held that reasons for reopening were based entirely on records already available during the original assessment. This amounted to a change of opinion, which is not permissible under the law. The Court observed that assessments after four years requires strict compliance with the conditions in the first proviso to Section 147. Accordingly the reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed. Relied on Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar, ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom.)(HC) Imperial Consultants and Securities Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024) 169 taxmann.com 587 (Bom)(HC) (WP No.5087 of 2022 dt. 15-1-2025)(AY. 2015 -16 )
Jayant Avinash Dave v. ACIT (Bom.)(HC) www.itatonline.org
[Coram : Hon’ble Shri Justice M. S. Sonak & Hon’ble Shri Justice Jitendra Jain]