Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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