The petitioner, Crystal Pride Developers, a partnership firm engaged in real estate development, filed its original return for AY 2014-15, declaring a loss of Rs. 5,53,822\/ which was\u00a0 assessed by the AO. .However, on 27.03.2021, beyond the four-year limitation period, the AO issued a notice under Section 148 for reopening the assessment, alleging that Rs. 7.64 crores had escaped taxation. The petitioner contended that the reopening was bad in law as it was beyond four years and based on a mere change of opinion, as the issue of partner withdrawals and interest-free loans had already been examined in the original assessment. Additionally, the reopening was triggered by an internal audit objection, which is impermissible. On writ the Court relied on Teerth Developers v. ACIT 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3621 , CIT v. \u00a0Kelvinator India Ltd [2010]320ITR561(SC) , \u00a0\u00a0KSS Petron Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT 2016SCCOnline Bom13550 and GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd v. ITO 20031SCC72 \u00a0\u00a0to hold that reassessment beyond four years requires a failure to disclose material facts, which was absent in this case. Further, the court noted that the AO failed to dispose of the petitioner\u2019s objections separately before passing the reassessment order, violating the principles of natural justice and GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Consequently, the reassessment notice \u00a0were quashed as being without jurisdiction. ( WP(L) No. 12546\/2022, dt. 27.02.2025) (AY .2014-15)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S.147: Reassessment \u2013 After the expiry of four years \u2013 Change of opinion- Internal audit \u2013 Failure to dispose of objections \u2013 Reopening of assessment based on change of opinion and internal audit objections is without jurisdiction \u2013 Notice is quashed. [S. 147, 144B, Art. 226]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-51757","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-dsN","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51757","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=51757"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51757\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":51758,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51757\/revisions\/51758"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=51757"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=51757"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=51757"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}