In the case of Lakshdeep Investments & Finance Pvt. Ltd, the Bombay High Court observed that “The notice does not refer to any other information forming the basis for the reasons for reopening. This is, therefore, a clear case of a change of opinion on the very same material which was before the earlier Assessment Officer and on which basis, the first assessment order was passed after scrutiny. This line of action is impermissible under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.”
The Bombay High Court also noted that the impugned notice does not even deal with a single line of the objections of the petitioner to conclude that there was some element of suppression of material by the petitioner in the previous scrutiny assessment, or that, there was any material facts, which the assessee had failed to disclose in the earlier assessment, which had now come to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer to conclude that there was escapement of income which was assessable to tax.
Hence the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was quashed. The Income Tax Commissioner has preferred the present appeal impugning the judgment of the Bombay High Court.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that “Although, there is a delay of 128 days in filing the Special Leave Petition, nevertheless, we have heard learned Additional Solicitor General on merits of the case. Delay condoned.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
