No Failure to Disclose Material Facts, No Reopening Income Tax Assessment: Supreme Court Declines Interference in HC Ruling favouring BPCL [Read Order]
The Bombay High Court had earlier quashed reassessment proceedings against BPCL noting that the Revenue could not establish that material facts were not fully disclosed.
![No Failure to Disclose Material Facts, No Reopening Income Tax Assessment: Supreme Court Declines Interference in HC Ruling favouring BPCL [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/03/19/2129625-no-failure-to-disclose-material-facts-income-tax-assessment-supreme-court-declines-interference-in-hc-ruling-favouring-bpcl-.webp "No Failure to Disclose Material Facts, No Reopening Income Tax Assessment: Supreme Court Declines Interference in HC Ruling favouring BPCL [Read Order]")
The Supreme Court declined interference with a Bombay High Court ruling that set aside income tax reassessment proceedings against Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL), sustaining the High Court ruling that an assessment cannot be reopened by the Revenue without being able to truly establish that the Assessee had failed to disclose material facts. Reassessment proceedings...
The Supreme Court declined interference with a Bombay High Court ruling that set aside income tax reassessment proceedings against Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL), sustaining the High Court ruling that an assessment cannot be reopened by the Revenue without being able to truly establish that the Assessee had failed to disclose material facts.
Reassessment proceedings were initiated against BPCL for the Assessment Years (AY) 2013-14 and 2014-15 under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices to BPCL under Section 148 alleging escaped income arising from exemption claimed under Section 10(34) in respect of dividend income received from a trust, as well as wrongly claimed deductions under Section 32AC for AY 2014-15.
It was alleged that the assessee had failed to fully and truly disclose material facts necessary for assessment, thus warranting reopening beyond the prescribed limitation period.
BPCL challenged the reassessment notices and the subsequent orders before the Bombay High Court.
The Bombay High Court examined the factual matrix, including the nature of the trust, the dividend income received, and the disclosures made during the original assessment proceedings.
It held that all relevant material facts had been fully disclosed by the assessee and that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion. In a detailed judgment, the Division Bench of Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla quashed the reassessment notices and the impugned orders for both assessment years.
The Revenue later instituted this petition before the Supreme Court.
The Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, heard the counsel including Additional Solicitor General N Venkataraman, and declined to interfere with the impugned judgment in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
The apex Court accordingly dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
