Section 147 – Reopening – Lenders had shown very less income in the ITR – Held reopening is bad on account of change of opinion – High Court shows indulgence towards AO, refrains from issuing notice for perjury and imposing costs for making wrong statement in reply.

Reopening was done beyond fours years on the ground that eight parties who had lent Rs Rs.27,87,70,259/- to Assessee had shown very less income in ITR’s. It was held that during the course of original Assessment Proceedings AO had verified and satisfied himself about the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of lenders and had also issued Notices u/s 133(6) to the lenders and thus reopening was bad in law due to change of opinion. It was also observed that statement in the Affidavit in Reply that the credit worthiness of the creditor and genuineness of transaction have not been explained is incorrect.