CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Taxation Law - Change of Opinion Does Not Justify Reassessment: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a latest judgment, the Supreme Court of India has reinstated the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision concerning the reassessment of income under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The apex court, led by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, overturned the High Court's ruling that had favored reassessment, emphasizing that a mere change of opinion by the assessing officer does not warrant the reopening of assessment cases.

The judgment, which has significant implications for income tax jurisprudence, revolved around the reassessment of income for M/s Mangalam Publications, Kottayam, for the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, and 1992-93. The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the circumstances under which reassessment can be initiated, underscoring the need for specific and reliable information as a basis for such actions.

Justice Bhuyan, in the Court's observation, noted, "A mere change of opinion cannot be a ground for reassessment." This statement underlines the Court’s stance that reassessment should be based on tangible, new evidence and not on subjective reinterpretations of existing facts.

The Court scrutinized the assessee's duty of disclosure, pointing out that while the duty to disclose fully and truly all primary facts is essential, it does not extend beyond this. The judgment clarified that the assessing officer's discretion in declaring returns as defective plays a crucial role in determining the validity of those returns. "If the assessing officer does not exercise discretion, the return of income cannot be construed as defective," the Court observed.

Supreme Court found that the reassessments were initiated based on the assessing officer's subjective analysis rather than on new, concrete evidence. The judgment reinstates the Tribunal's decision that deemed the reassessments unjustified, thus allowing the appeals of the assessee and its partners.

Date of Decision: 23rd January 2024

M/S MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Latest Legal News