2025 (6) TMI 1408 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D - eligibility of reasons to believe - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that at the time of original assessment proceedings the details were sought by the AO regarding the exempt income earned by the petitioner along with the investment from which the exempt income to be generated. The petitioner-Company by reply dated 30.11.2019 has provided such details and has also stated that the petitioner has earned share from the partnership firm which is disclosed in the return of income as well as in the Note No.22 of the Notes forming part of the financial statements namely Other Income . Thus the information which is sought to be relied upon by the respondent for assumption of jurisdiction to re-open the assessment proceedings was duly processed during the regular assessment proceedings and no dis-allowance was made u/s 14A of the Act. Hence the impugned notice issued on the basis of the verification of the profit and loss account and the balance-sheet of the petitioner-Company for the year under consideration in absence of any fresh new tangible material available with the respondent cannot be sustained as the reasons recorded by the AO to assume the jurisdiction to re-open the assessment clearly depict that the re-opening is sought to be done only on the basis of mere change of opinion. Even the respondent while rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner has not dealt with the submissions on the ground that the petitioner filed the reply beyond the period of sixty days. In view of the above settled legal position the respondent-Assessing Officer could not have assumed the jurisdiction to re-open the assessment on mere change of opinion as it would amount to review the Assessment Order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on the same set of facts which is not permissible. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to re-open the assessment for the Assessment Year 2017-18 was valid and sustainable.

2. Whether the Assessing Officer had a valid "reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, justifying re-opening under Section 147 of the Act.

3. Whether the re-opening was based on tangible new material or merely a change of opinion on the same facts already considered during the original assessment.

4. The applicability and interpretation of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules concerning disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt income.

5. The scope and limits of the Assessing Officer's power to re-open assessments under the Income Tax Act and the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with such notices.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Re-opening Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 148 empowers the Assessing Officer to re-open an assessment if he has "reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The Supreme Court's ruling in the cited case clarifies that the power to re-open is not unlimited and cannot be exercised merely on a "change of opinion" but must be based on tangible material indicating escapement of income. The phrase "reason to believe" was reintroduced by Parliament to prevent arbitrary reassessments based on mere opinion.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found that the Assessing Officer's reasons for re-opening were based solely on information already available and considered during the original assessment, namely the balance sheet and profit and loss account, which disclosed the investments and exempt income. No fresh or new tangible material had come to light after the original assessment. Thus, the re-opening was effectively a review of the same facts, which is impermissible.

Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner had filed detailed returns and replies during the original assessment, disclosing exempt income and investments. The Assessing Officer's notice for re-opening was founded on the same financial statements and audit objections, without any new material.

Application of Law to Facts: Since the Assessing Officer did not have any new tangible material beyond the original documents, the re-opening amounted to a mere change of opinion, which the law prohibits.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents argued that the Assessing Officer had formed a prima facie reason to believe income had escaped and that sufficiency of reasons cannot be questioned at this stage. The Court rejected this, emphasizing the need for tangible material and not just a change of opinion.

Conclusion: The notice under Section 148 was invalid as it was based on mere change of opinion and not on fresh tangible material.

2. Applicability of Section 14A and Rule 8D Regarding Disallowance of Expenditure Relating to Exempt Income

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 14A read with Rule 8D mandates disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn exempt income, even if no exempt income is earned in that year, as clarified by CBDT Circular No. 05/2014. The Assessing Officer relied on this to justify re-opening, asserting that disallowance was not made in the original assessment despite the petitioner's investments and exempt income from partnership firms.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the issue of disallowance under Section 14A was examined during the original assessment proceedings, with the petitioner providing detailed information about exempt income and investments. The Assessing Officer had not made any addition for disallowance in the original order, but that alone does not justify re-opening without new material.

Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner's financial statements disclosed share of profit from partnership firms and investments in unquoted shares. The Assessing Officer's calculation of disallowance under Rule 8D was based on the same data already available.

Application of Law to Facts: Since no new evidence emerged post-assessment, and the petitioner had fully disclosed relevant facts, the re-opening on this ground was not justified.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents contended that the disallowance was necessary and that the petitioner understated income by not making such disallowance. The Court held that this amounted to a mere change of opinion rather than discovery of new material.

Conclusion: The re-opening on the ground of disallowance under Section 14A was not sustainable as the matter was already considered and no new material was brought forth.

3. Scope of the Assessing Officer's Jurisdiction and the Role of Article 226

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court acknowledged that the petitioner has alternative remedies under the Income Tax Act to challenge reassessment orders, including appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. However, the Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash the notice where the Assessing Officer acted without jurisdiction or on untenable grounds.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court emphasized that the Assessing Officer's power to re-open is circumscribed by the need for tangible material and cannot be exercised on a mere change of opinion. The Court relied on the Apex Court's decision which underscored that the Assessing Officer has no power to review but only to reassess based on valid reasons.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Court found that the Assessing Officer did not demonstrate any new tangible material justifying re-opening, and the reasons recorded were insufficient.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court held that the impugned notice and subsequent rejection of objections were illegal and without jurisdiction, warranting interference under Article 226.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents urged restraint and reliance on statutory appeal mechanisms, but the Court found the jurisdictional error justified judicial intervention.

Conclusion: The Court quashed the notice and order rejecting objections, holding that the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction was improperly exercised.

Significant Holdings:

"Section 147 of the Income Tax Act post-1st April, 1989, empowers the Assessing Officer to re-open an assessment only if there is tangible material to come to the conclusion that income has escaped assessment. Mere change of opinion on the same facts is not a valid reason to re-open."

"The Assessing Officer has no power to review the assessment order; re-assessment must be based on fulfillment of the pre-condition of having reason to believe backed by tangible material."

"Re-opening of assessment on the basis of audit objections or on the perusal of the same financial statements already considered during original assessment, without any fresh material, is impermissible and amounts to mere change of opinion."

"The Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 can be exercised to quash notices issued without jurisdiction or on untenable grounds, notwithstanding the availability of alternative statutory remedies."

Final determinations:

- The notice issued under Section 148 to re-open the assessment was quashed as it was based on mere change of opinion without new tangible material.

- The Assessing Officer's rejection of the petitioner's objections was set aside for lack of jurisdiction.

- The principle that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated on the same set of facts already considered was reaffirmed.