Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(1) & Ors v. Meera Jadhav

Digitallysigned by1/2MEERAMEERAMAHESHMAHESHJADHAVJADHAVDate:2021.12.03 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY11:35:14+0530ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONWRIT PETITION NO.2022 OF 2021 R. S. Infra-Transmission Ltd. V/s. ….Petitioner Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(1) & Ors. …Respondents ---- Mr. Ativ Patel i/b AVP Partners for PetitionerMr. Sham V. Walve a/w Mr. Pritish Chatterjee for Respondents-Revenue ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ DATED : 30th NOVEMBER 2021 P.C. : 1Petitioner has impugned a notice dated 31st March 2021 issued underSection 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961, by which respondents seeking toreopen the assessment for A.Y.-2014-2015. Since notice to reopen has beenissued after expiry of 4 years of completion of assessment, the proviso toSection 147 of the Act squarely applies to the case. The proviso to Section147 that was applicable at the relevant time provides where an assessmentunder Sub-Section (3) of Section 143 of the Act has been made for therelevant assessment year, no action shall be taken after the expiry of 4 yearsfrom the end of relevant assessment year. There is a bar. The exception tothis bar is whether income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment forsuch assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of assessee, todisclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, forthat assessment year. Therefore, only if there is a failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for hisassessment, can an action be taken under Section 147 after expiry of 4 yearsfrom the end of the relevant assessment year. 2We have perused the reasons given in the communication dated 25thMay 2021. It is nothing but change of opinion which is not permissible inlaw. There is nothing indicated as to what has not been disclosed bypetitioner before the original assessment order was passed. 3In the circumstances, as the reasons do not disclose any material that has not been fully and truly disclosed by petitioner, in our view, respondentscould not have validly reopened petitioner's case for A.Y.-2014-2015. 4In the circumstances, petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which read as under: “(a) that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorarior a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiacalling for the records of the case leading to the issue of the impugnednotice and after going through the same and examining the questionof legality thereof to quash, set aside the impugned notice dated 31[st]March 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act as unconstitutionalbeing violative of Article 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India” 5Petition disposed with no order as to cost. (AMIT B. BORKAR, J) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)