Court’s Decision:
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reassessment of AY 2011-12. The court held that the reopening was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion and lacked fresh tangible material. The court emphasized, “Petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer because of lapse of the Assessing Officer (AO).”
Facts:
The petitioner, Discovery Communications India, is engaged in the distribution, advertisement, marketing, and production of educational and entertainment content. For AY 2011-12, the petitioner filed its income return, which was scrutinized under Section 143(3) of the Act, concluding with a final assessment on October 30, 2015. However, on March 31, 2018, the respondent issued a notice under Section 148 to reopen the assessment, claiming that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment due to expenses related to the Discovery Appreciation Plan (DAP) and production expenses.
Issues:
- Whether the reopening of assessment beyond four years under Section 147 was justified.
- Whether the reassessment was based on a change of opinion, invalidating the proceedings.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner contended that there was no fresh material justifying the reassessment and that the reopening was based on a change of opinion, which is impermissible under the law. The petitioner argued that all details related to the DAP and production expenses were already disclosed during the original assessment, and similar claims were accepted in subsequent assessments.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondent argued that the petitioner had claimed DAP expenses in AY 2011-12, which were allowed without proper examination. The respondent asserted that the reassessment was justified as it was initiated on a prima facie belief that income had escaped assessment due to these claims.
Analysis of the Law:
The court examined Section 147, which requires that income can be reassessed only if there is a failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. The court emphasized that reopening an assessment after four years necessitates a failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts, as held in Swarovski India (P) Ltd. and Goetze (India) Ltd.
Precedent Analysis:
The court referenced CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., where the Supreme Court held that a change of opinion does not justify reassessment. It also relied on CIT v. Suren International Private Limited, which outlined that reopening based on a change of opinion is invalid. Other cases, including Eicher Ltd. and Batra Bhatta Company, reinforced that reopening cannot be based on AO’s lapse or oversight during the original assessment.
Court’s Reasoning:
The court found that the AO’s reason for reopening the assessment was a mere change of opinion, which is not a valid ground for reassessment under Section 147. The AO admitted that the alleged underassessment was due to oversight and lack of verification. The court stated that “such a lapse by the AO cannot justify reopening the assessment.”
Conclusion:
The Delhi High Court quashed the reassessment notice, concluding that the essential requirements for reopening, including a failure on the assessee’s part to disclose all necessary facts, were not met. The court stated that the petitioner should not be penalized for the AO’s failure to examine the material fully.
Implications:
This judgment reinforces the principle that reassessment based on a change of opinion is impermissible. It underlines that tax authorities must base reopening of assessments on fresh material evidence, ensuring taxpayers are not subjected to reassessment due to procedural lapses by the AO.
Pingback: Kerala High Court Upholds Preventive Detention, Dismisses Habeas Corpus Petition, Rules Administrative Delay in Communication Does Not Violate Article 22(4) if Confirmation Order is Issued Within Three Months - Raw Law